according to a report by the perryman group, the perryman of p is run by mr. perryman waco, texas and has worked closely with rick perry the face of the republican party in texas. it's time to highlight the benefits of immigration reform and further encourage those on the right to support immigration reform moving through the house. in a time of economic hardship it's hard to imagine that my colleagues on both sides of the sle would be against expanding the economy. i want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this important issue and let's not make these families and our economy wait any longer. the time for comprehensive reform is now. thank you. r. cardenas: thank you, every corner of this country is going to benefit from

immigration reform and you heard them explaining how republicans are urging comprehensive immigration reform. before i go to the next speaker, madam speaker, how much time do we still have? the speaker pro tempore: you have 18 minutes. ardard with that, i -- mr. cardenas: with that, i yield time to mr. garcia of florida. i'd like to thank the gentleman from california. madam speaker, it's been 20 days since the senate passed overwhelmingly bipartisan immigration reform bill. in the house judiciary committee, we have been considering -- we have considered four controversial

bills, none of which address the 11 million people that are already here. in south florida, for example, there are thousands of ven wail d families stuck in an immigration system with illegal or undocumented status. they have fleed and purchased homes and invested millions in our committee. earlier this year, i introduced a bill, which would allow any .esident of venezuela this is similar to what congress passed in 1997 with the nicaragua adjustment act and the central america relief act. we have yet to consider any sort of legalization path, the house judiciary committee has yet to consider this bill as an

amendment or to debate on how best to bring people out of the shadows and the people of venezuela aren't alone. the young people who are covered , continue to live their lives in immigration limbo while the house has yet to act. immigration reform isn't about politics but about our nation's values, our economy and our future. the recent white house report and last month's c.b.o. report confirmed what my constituents in south florida already know. our nation's livelihood depends on fixing our broken immigration system. the center for american progress says it would generate over 8,000 additional jobs per year in florida and the current florida citizens would see an increase in wages of $6.3

billion. we may not agree on everything, but we cannot afford to wait any longer. passing immigration reform will spur innovation, lower our deficit and raise wages for all workers. as of the voices of many dreamers who have recently descended on washington aren't enough, business leaders, law ers cement officials, farm throughout the u.s. have urged congress to take action. it's time to move forward. i urge to bring the immigration reform to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. cardenas: thank you very much, congressman garcia. next, i yield time to congressman vargas from alifornia.

mr. vargas: i want to thank the gentleman from california for yielding to allow me to speak on this very important issue. i especially want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for putting it in the context of our faith and our faith communities and our faith tradition. he quoted from matthew 25, he lavidicu quoted from 1933 and 34. when an yalen resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. the foreigner among you must be treated as your native born. love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in egypt. i'm the lord your god. i have to ask, are we keeping that commandment, that rule, are we keeping that pronouncement?

of course we are not. i wish we were. immigration reform is vital to our country and particularly to california and my district. california is unique in that it is home to the technology industry, which relies heavily and highly on skilled talent. and has an incredibly successful agriculture industry which needs a temporary worker program which provides a predictable work force. the more california business leaders i speak with, the more apparent that immigration reform is the key to stimulating our economy and encouraging job growth. the immediate past president and c.e.o. of the regional chamber of commerce and head of grow elect said quote, it is the responsibility of national leaders to modernize our immigration laws to help the

united states remain competitive in the global economy. comprehensive immigration reform should help to attract highly skilled immigrants and provide pathway to legalization for qualified undocumented immigrants. we must welcome immigrants who continue to strengthen our economy and reinvigorate our society, end of quote. the california chamber of commerce is aware of the immense value that surrounds successful immigration reform. the california chamber of commerce along with 29 other chambers signed a letter stating they stand united in adopting comprehensive reform. the letter states, quote, immigration reform is especially important to california as there are approximately 2.6 million undocumented immigrants in california, 23% of the nation's total. the uncertainty over their legal status is a drag on our economy and if resolved, would stimulate

consumer spending and investment, end quote. many of those in california have called our state home for more than 10 years, becoming americans in all but legal status. californians would benefit from more than 18,000 jobs created each year as a result of comprehensive immigration reform according to a 2013 study by the center for american progress. california would see a 10-year cumulative increase in gross state product of $125.5 billion, an increase of earnings of all residents of delrg 68.2 billion 2 increase in taxes by 5. billion. there is no denying that immigration reform is an economically sound decision and i urge my republican colleagues to work with us to achieve a real valuable economically

immigration reform and they look at their own faith, because that's really the basis of this. we know it's the right thing to do. look to again he cyst and matthew and you will see in your hearts this is the right thing to do. thank you, i yield back. mr. cardenas: thank you very much. i yield time to congressman castro. and i would like to ask congressman castro and help me answer the question, a young lady tweeted as we are commenting tonight from the floor. brenda asked, what are you doing for children who came here through no fault of their own? ongressman castro? ms. bass: thank you for your -- ms. bass: -- ms. castor: there are students

known as dreamers brought here through no fault of their own and find themselves undocumented with no way oftentimes to go to college or pursue their career dreams. these are folks who are in a limbo. mr. castro: what we should do is ff a path to citizenship and allow them to become american citizens. this country is for the overwhelming majority of them the only country they have called home and only place they know as home. and this is an issue that tugs at the conscience of americans. and most polls show that an overwhelming majority of americans support a path to citizenship for dream act students. so i hope, congressman, that what we can do in the house of representatives is follow the example of the senate. work in a bipartisan manner and

offer relief for these dream act students who are caught in limbo who through no fault of their own who call our country home and proud to be americans and deserve a chance to become full-fledged citizens. mr. cardenas: i would point out, as i said before, there are compelling moral and economic reasons to support comprehensive reform. mr. castro: i represent san antonio, texas and of all the states in the nation, i believe texas has the most to gain or lose by what happens on this issue. the reason i say that is we have the longest border with mexico. 1,200 miles. we do the most trade with latin america, and there are four, five major american industries and texas industries, everything from the high-tech industry in austin, just as you have one in

california, to the agricultural industry, the construction industry, the hospitality industry, they would not exist but for immigrant labor. and i want to give you the best example of that. the agricultural industry self-reports that 50% of its workers are undocumented. and so when states like alabama and georgia pass laws that essentially led immigrants to flee those states, their agricultural industries paid a very steep price. so those are the stakes that we are dealing with on this issue. house ing that republicans will join democrats who have been pushing for comprehensive reform for quite some time now join us in coming to a solution that does more fear or scare people and try to resolve this

issue for the nation. and with that, congressman, i yield back. mr. cardenas: thank you very much, congressman castro. i thank all of my colleagues who spoke here tonight and thank you, madam speaker for affording us the opportunity to speak to the american public and explain this very, very critical important and economic benefit. i thank my colleagues, my fellow americans, for speaking out tonight and explaining to every american of our great country that comprehensive immigration reform benefits you. every single person in this country will benefit tremendously from the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. it's important for us to understand to many of us, american-born citizens, this is a very important issue. it's about economics, but also an emotional issue as well. i'm very, very proud to say i was born in this country.

and i thank my parents for coming to california and for raising me in california as an american citizen, even though they were raised in mexico. i think it's important for us to understand that i'm proud of growing up in a family where my father owned a business and he taught me and explained to me with his first-grade education in mexico, he told me time and time again as well as telling my 10 brothers and sisters, you have the opportunity for education. you need to take advantage of that opportunity, and we did. i'm very proud to say, my mother had a second-grade education, my father had a first-grade education, but their children have doctor's agrees, engineers, teachers, psychologists, all ised in one humble home in california. that is the american experience, ladies and gentlemen. and one thing that i'm very

proud to say as well, our 10 families now that we are raising our own american families, every single one of our households pays more annually in taxes than my mother and father's home ever made in one given year. i'll say that again, from a humble home where a man and a woman together raised their children, their entire annual income did not equal the amount of taxes that each one of their sons and daughters' homes now pay today. to me, that's the ex clamation point on everything we talked about tonight. we talked about how important it is to the social security system, it will boost that. how we hear about the deficit, it will erase $850 billion fl our u.s. deficit. there are so many benefits that

will benefit not only our covers here in washington that benefits -- coffers here in washington that benefits americans that will work in those industries that are created and spear heap headed by immigrants in this country. i would like to read a few of the names of american -- of immigrants born outside of this country who created businesses in this country that many of us use every day and recognize. . . sergei brin, co-founder of google from russia. james kraft a canadian, co-found over kraft foods inc. levi strauss, founder of levi strauss and company. liz claiborne from belgium founder of liz claiborne inc,

nd that's a company worth $5 billion. andrew grove from hungary, co-founder of intel a company orth $112 billion. the founder of hovnanian enterprises home builder with revenue of $1 nt -- of $1. billion. every single one of those individuals made their second life here in our great country and it's because there was a time that in this cubry we embraced everyone from around the world and all we asked of them is that they just obey the laws once they are here and that they do well with the opportunities that our great country affords every human being when they are here. we have one of the highest standard of living in the world

and there's a reason for that because there was a time for many, many years that we welcomed people to our shores and now basically at this time where we just reopened the statue of liberty, it's time for taos embrace people from around the world and for us to recognize it's not just about doing the right thing for them. it is the right thing for every american citizen born in this country. the benefits economically are tremendous. there are no losers, ladies and gentlemen. when it comes to united states congress doing the right thing. let's put a comprehensive immigration bill through our process and on the desk of this president and let's watch this country thrive. our great country deserves it. thank you very much, madam speaker, and once again i'd lick to thank whoverb participated. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins is now recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker, i appreciate your time tonight and i appreciate you being here and my friends from across the aisle, their time as well. i think they speak to a great issue that's coming aboard and we're going to, i know, have many great discussions about that to come. i'm grateful for this floor time tonight which i'm pleased to share tonight with my good friend and one of the newe members here in the house, the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith. it's an incredible honor and privilege to serve in this house and to be part, and for me, the privilege of serving as the voice of northeast georgia in the us house of representatives for now going on six months. i'm humbled and honored by the trust my constituents have policed tissue placed in me and i want to share some of the

lessons i've learn and the profwress we're making in achieving goals i spent over a year talking about on the campaign trail, talking about to the friends and family and the supporters and the constituents of our northeast georgia community. 20 counties make up northeast georgia in the ninth congressional district. it's a diverse area, an area in which we have the mountains, from the highlands to the islands, we have lakes, we have lowlands, we have the start of the appalachian trail, we have a place where movies are created, we have a place where i believe dreams are fostered. but for me it started back a long time ago. my father was a georgia state trooper. he came, we moved to gainesville, that's where i was raised, spen my life, went to high school, and my hom and dad along with my brother, that's what gound me was family, and as i stand here on the floor, as i look around and listen as i had the great honor to sit in

that chair and preside over a debate, an earnest debate on what i feel is an important topic right now, one in which we had disagreement, one in which we looked forward and one side presenting one issue, the other presenting another and from my perspective we voted to delay a bill that in my personal opinion is damaging to america. we had that debate here. by standing in that chair and working there, it reminded me when i used to watch this floor from my home when i was in high school and when i came up through college and as i was starting a young family with my wonderful bride lisa witness stand we have our three children, i would watch on c-span, watch this floor and i would is see many of the same folks who have spoken today an now to be part of this body, there's a sense of history. if i can encourage any of my fellow colleagues, whether they be democrat or republican, new, old, been here a little over a month or been here 50-something

years, it's to remember that when we talk on the floor of this house, it means something special. it meeps something to be a part of an institution that makes a difference in people's lives. i believe from my perspective as a republican, as a conservative, it's that we can make a difference on the floor of this house and in washington, d.c. when we remember why we are here. and for me that's very easy. it's the people of the ninth district. it's my family. i shared with my folks everywhere i would speak, they asked me, why do you want to be a member of the house of representatives? and i said, i had three reasons. they were jordan, cokeland and cam ran, my three children. i believe what goes on in this house floor and across the way in the senate, what happens on this capitol ground is something that can make a difference because all across the world, ladies and gentlemen, people still look to us, they still look to america because we are the freest country in the world, we're a country that provides

opportunity but we have to be guarded. and we have to watch. and we have to stay vigilant and in doing so i believe that that is what make this is place special. you see, i've learned a lot in the first half of 2013. the need to vigilantly protect the noble heritage of our founding fathers that they gave us here as a heritage of liberty, responsibility and limited government. this has been ims preed upon me in the last little bit as never before. over the last six monts, our nation in this distinguished body faced issues and challenges no one could have anticipated even six months ago, let alone a year ago. in my short time here we anticipate and experienced the tragedy and horror of domestic terrorism in the boston bombing. i can remember the day and hearing about that and just thinking the tragedy, what was going on, seing the faces of those afingted by that and it highlighted our need for our security and well being here and some within our country

want to tear down the freedoms we have and will do so by any means. but i'll also from a lighthearted way, sort of like the last couple of months has also been, when i was younger i used to like those little pez dispensers. i liked them they had the head and the character, but when you pushed the top something would pop out, it would be candy. here for the last month or two, all we've had a is pez pez nser of scandal, a dispenser of problems with the i.r.s. and justice and n.s.a. and things that really come to a point that really elaborate, i believe, on the issue of trust in this town. it goes back to the towns in northeast georgia for me personally like homer and gainesville and cuming and el behrton and these kind of places where they look to us and say what are you doing up

there? why is it so hard to not do it right? and i've been part of committees through judiciary and the government and oversight committee and foreign affairs an we've investigated and held hearings because i believe we've got to hold ourselves accountable and hold the admgs accountable because we're sent up here with a word that's very often overlooked. it's kuhl -- called stewardship. we're stewards of what we've been given. and the given for us is an elected tufse come and represent 700,000 or more people and to do so with the resources we've been given and when we look around and see that pez dispenser and it pops out another issue or another scandal, then their trust is diminished. when they trust is diminished, ladies and gentlemen, then we have a lot harder job to do. so as we're looking over this tonight, and these are trying times for our nation and the commonsense conservative values i believe i bring from

northeast georgia, these values are rooted in the principles of our founders they give me guidance for why i want to be here and what i want to accomplish and be part of. i have to say there's also been one of the best things i have had is looking around, making new friends on both sides of the aisle and looking at that as we go forward but also seeing for me being one of the newest and newest member of the georgia delegation is looking around and when i have someone come in and i make a new friend o is our youngest and newest member from the house republican side, the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, who took the responsibility from his work in the legislature in missouri, who has taken his ght in regulatory reform and stepped into the pit, to speak, stepped into the fire, i'm glad to have you here and serving with you on judiciary and getting to know you, i see why the people of missouri sent you here. i would be honored to yield

time to you tine to hear what's in your heart and what brought you here and some things you've seen in your short time here. i'd be happy to yield to you. mr. smith: i want to thank my good friend from georgia it's a great honor being in this chamber for 42 days. i definitely have some issues that are quite important to me, one that i would like to highlight tonight is an issue that threatens my district. it's the national blue way system, it was conceived on may 24, 20 12rks by then interior department secretary salazar. the national blue way system is described as a headwaters to mouth approach to rivers management. a mechanism to encourage stake holders to i want freight their land and water stewardship, efforts by adopting a watershed approach. importantly, a river supposed to be nominated for by a blue -- nominated for blue ways

designation by local stake holders. though no local stake holders were included in the process in my district, the white river watershed in my district was named as the nation's second national blue way in january of this year. nominated the white river to become a blue way? the national wildlife refuge association. an organization based in washington, d.c. a quick trip to their website reveals that in addition to being based in washington, d.c., around 1,000 miles away from the white river watershed, not a single member of their board of directors is from arkansas or missouri. where is the local knowledge? how is this organization a stake holder? local stake holders eventually found out about the designation and were furious, as you can imagine.

and when i use the term local stake holders, i mean groups and individuals living in the watershed including public officials elected to represent those individuals. why were they furious? typically federal regulations, federal designations bring along with them rules and regulations that affect the land owners. these rules and regulations might restrict access to the rivers in my district that are used for recreational purposes and fuel our tourist economy. these rules and regulations might also restrict farmers and ranchers from being able to access the water they need for their crops an livestock. i'm pleased to note that the white river national blue way nomination was recently withdrawn due in large part to significant outcry from missourians left out of the process. we weral informed today that the entire national blueway

system has been tossed and put under re-- paused and put under review. but i want to make something clear here today. simply pausing the program until the folks back home forget about it and then trying to restart the designations is deplorable. i urge the interior department to quickly complete its review and define that the entire blue way system needs to be scraped. we discussed the blueway system today in two hearings. n the first, the secretary noted she didn't know much about the blueway system. when i asked her who the relevant authority on the blueway system was, she said it was rebecca water. unfortunately for those of us who have liked to ask the interior department questions about the blueway, rebecca water

refused to come to our subcommittee hearing. as we noted, the process for designating these national blueways has not always been voluntary, open or public. it is disturbing that this ms. water continues to testify about this program before our committee. though the program is often trumetted as voluntary and open to the public, ms. water has never made her comments voluntary, open or public about the designation. madam speaker, let me provide you with a little more background about the district that i proudly represent. missouri's 8th congressional district. it contains 30 counties in southeastern and southern missouri. we range from 40 miles south of the city of st. louis, down the mighty mississippi, the entire

boot hill region, all the way west to about 40 miles east of springfield and the east county area. my district is diverse. we grow everything but citrus and sugar. 14 of the 0 counties in my district contain land that would have been within the white river national blueway designation. in addition, my district includes the ozark national river way, which spans through five counties on the western side, including my home county, near my home of salem. the parts of our local economy that are not driven by agriculture rely on tourism and natural resources. folks are guided on float trips on the rivers and streams contained in my district. we have a timber industry that

provides finished wood products and some of the largest district employers. what is the common thread that ties together, agriculture, tourism and natural resources in my district. its property right. and our ability to use the land and its bount to make a living. all too often, the federal government tugs at this thread threatening to unwind the fabric of our economy, whether it's new regulations restricting farm labor, new e.p.a. carbon emission rules that would shutter our largest employers or shutting down access or restricting the use of our rivers, streams in my district. my district is under attack. my constituents and i are tired of unelected washington, d.c. bureaucrats creating new

programs out of thin air and having the ability to end our rural way of life and the way that we make a living. while the white river national blueways has been withdrawn, it is the latest symptom of a disease that has embedded itself into the very core. they think they know better than locals and can act on their own without congressional approval or oversight. where does it stop? madam speaker, today i challenge the members of this body to make it our goal not only to stop the national blueway system all over this country, but also to fight the disease that spawned it. local groups and individuals are best situated to manage their land and resources. don't need bureaucratic mandates sent from on high in

washington, d.c. that may have devastating repercussions to our local economy. mr. collins: one of the things i want to ask you and take a moment here, one of the things you brought up is something i have discovered and i discovered it when i was on the state legislature as well but even here it's more prevalent. there used to be a show called "father knows best" is that what you are seeing? >> it seems like they know how to better manage our forests our rivers, our lives, our kids working on the farms. they believe that that's the process that you should manage from up above and push down. mr. collins: my district and the district you serve, i have 20 counties, very agriculturally diverse. we have livestock and poultry wineries m with the

and what we are finding is let us do what we need to do. from our conservative perspective, working with the farm bill and the issues, let's eal with the agriculture and deal with the things in the snap programs and other things separately and i believe that was a good thing. talk about coming and testifying in committees and you and i sit next to each other and you seen it today, if you work, in my personal opinion, you work for the government, congress is your oversight agency. that is the constitutional role. and it is disturbing in not only what we have shared, but i have seen it in other committees as well where they don't show up. we have a disconnect. do you think this person gets your district and the impact that will have in not coming to

testify? >> it's extremely disappointing that any federal employee that is asked by congress to come and testify and to give information in a broader sense and they refuse to testify or refuse to be present, that's unacceptable. they shouldn't be a federal employee if they aren't willing to stand up and justify what they do in their position. and constantly you see the buck continuously passed on and never does it stop with a lot of folks in the bureaucracy in the federal government. that's our responsibility. that's our responsibility as members of congress is to go after these bureaucrats who try to never allow the truth to always be seen immediately. mr. collins: i agree. one of the things we look at. we have thousands upon thousands of workers in our federal government and state governments who are good people who want to

make a difference and they believe that's their calling to do that. unfortunately, it's those individuals sometimes that -- you and i believe in stewardship and interacting with the congress and interacting with locals that cast diss petitioners on a large net of workers who are trying to do it right and do it every day and do the work for the government that they work for. i believe it goes back to stewardship. i'm raised on that stewardship issue. i'm going to talk about it more later. if you have job. i appreciate so much what you have meant to this body in 42 days and look forward to us working together. i thank you for that. the principles that i want to talk about here for a little while is what i call commonsense conservative values and there are things like individual

freedom.fiscal i took these as my core values as you would. i took them seriously in not only crafting the legislature i wanted to work on and signing on to other pieces of legislation and working with our conservative members and republican party and those across the aisle, because here's where i believe we miss it and my colleague from missouri brought this out. it's easy for many times that we can always say what we do. we can always say this is what we do and many times as we will be able to say this is how we do it. however, i believe that we and is from my party and as a conservative who stands in this well and speaks tonight, we have got to get better not only saying this is how we are doing it, but we have to reconnect

with the american people in this body and in this city with why we do what we do. and that is going to matter when we look at people looking up here and look at the tv and read newspapers and see the problems that we talked about earlier. they see the disconnect with a top-down style that is growing in our country, whether it be on the river systems or be in our farms, factories or our workplaces. what we have to understand is we've got to now say these are the beliefs that i just laid out, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally-limited government. i want to begin a conversation and say this is why i believe, this is what is good for america. this is why i believe as i did this afternoon, if it was good enough for businesses, it has to be good enough for individuals and have to be fair. they understand when we are not being fair and they look at us

and believe things that are said and they say we don't trust our government. we don't trust them not to listen into our phone conversations or tap into our internet emails. they don't believe us when we say we have their best interests at heart. frankly, we have failed them and i believe from a conservative perspective, have to get back to saying why it matters to have a balanced budget. i know it sounds like comic relief in this city. for me and my family, i take it back to my home and wife and sit down and look at our budget. believe me i am blessed. i have said before, if i could get my -- we would be balanced in a short time and have a surplus and we have done it many times when we cut back and it's

called priority and it's called stewardship and goes back to individual freedom and back to fiscal responsibility and constitutional and limited government. i believe the conservative values and conservative principles and ideas that we are trying to promote from my perspective from my district and my service here in washington is what will matter in this country. are in the beautiful scenery, they understand they have paychecks, they have school bills, family, responsibility and want to be a part but have to look at it from the perspective of what do i have and how do i do it. it goes back to the common theme of stewardship, stewardship and

understanding we have been given a set amount of resources and a set amount of time and the question is what do we do with it. i believe that is what will change and put us back on a course of being able to work together and moving forward with ideas that matter. and for people that now say we cannot continue the path we're on, when they have a low opinion of this body and look at their country and says it's in a wrong direction because we have left our founding fathers who said we should be promoting individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. in january, i joined my colleagues in reading the united states constitution right here on this house floor. i came right here to this podium as my election came about after six months. it was right here where we began with reading the constitution again. and i believe each public servant should constantly refer

to this vital document when performing his or her duties and those things that have come from our courts that have formed the foundation of our constitutional framework. i'm pleased that this body began this session by reminding ourselves about the responsibilities to the american people and the liberties we are sworn to protect. i'm a chaplain in the united states reserves and i have been monitoring the development surrounding our service members of freedom of speech and religious exercise. our men and uniform bleed detail and die with these precious liberties. i had the opportunity to serve in iraq in 2008. and i had the ability and i was a night time night flight chaplain and only chaplain on duty and i would spend time with our flying squadrons and our

maintenance operators and food service folks and security forces and get to know them on a real and personable basis and i did so in a role that if they had no faith or had faith. and i protected them. but it was protected under what chaplains do. and lately, efforts through the d.o.d., and outside organizations and this administration wants to take that privilege and that right that we have in our constitution and take it away. i'm very troubled by efforts that would curb chaplains' ability and service members from sharing their faith or a scripture with other service members. before anyone jumps up saying pros lethiesing, there are already rules for that and keep

out of bounds someone sharing or putting someone in a position of ncomfortableability with their faith. we share in our heart and being a southern baptist chaplain it comes from a faith that is me.ly melded within now we have ideas of bringing into the chaplain corps an atheist chaplain. at first when i first heard this i thought this must be a joke. you're kidding me. an atheist chaplain? if you choose not to believe in god that's your right, you're in america, that's your belief, that's something you can have. u can be agnostic, believe

there's a god be not a personal one, or you can have another faith, you can be muslim or hindu or whatever you want to do, believe whatever you want to be, but when they get into this area, to bring in a chaplain, we have to have a master's degree, we have to be endorsed, we serve the military by maintaining military bearing and physical fitness and our physical qualifications but i have to maintain my qualifications as a southern baptist ordained minister. in doing so i can't have one without another. it goes back to a theme of responsibility. i believe that responsibility, no matter the household, no matter the political persuasion, people get responsibility. and they get stewardship. but as chaplains we have to measure both sides. and so when it becomes a game in my mind to take away or denigrate what the chaplain's

role is, to protect the religious freedom of all service members whether they have faith or not, then we're missing it. and frankly, main treat america don't get it. they don't understand in their churches and synagogues an their mosques they don't get it , when washington, d.c., when we have job issues in our country, when we have financial issues in our country, and we are finding out from our agencies and department of defense and administration that is pushing an agenda to go at the very heart of our constitutional freedom, they don't get it. and frankly, i don't either. i'm going to be watching this over the next few weeks, few months, and i'll continue to speak out. there are many ways for us to be there but i believe as a chaplain i have stood beside the bed of those who believed as i and those who never had a faith and never wanted a faith but wanted to talk to someone

they knew was not in the chain of command that they should hare in and confide in, when they knew back home their wives were struggling, their kids were struggling they wanted to talk about their work environment, about their job, about their dreams and aspirations. for some they needed protection. they wanted their meals because they needed kosher requirements or even in one case in which we had a situation in which a wiccan who want to have had a place to perform their services and we provided that for them. that's not the faith i subscribe to but it's my job as a chaplain, it's my role to provide that for them so that they can. we've got to quit playing games and we definitely have to quit playing games with our fundamental freedoms. you see, we can talk about what we want to do and how we want to do it but i believe many people are just wanting to know why this matters. why is doug collins talking about this on the floor tonight? why is he talking about these issues of individual freedom,

fiscal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government. why? because it matters. because it is the things that make us free. i've also taken seriously our second amendment rights in seing what has happened up hered on not take into account or discounting the needs we have in our society for a responsible firearm ownership but we cannot take away the rights of gun owners in our country and those who want to own guns. why? because it matters. when we look at this, one of the issues i had over my last few months, i was driving home one night and in the midst of this debate, should we curb gun rights, i thought to myself what did my dad, and i have a fournl who grew up shooting he talks about the way he would shoot, target shooting as he was growing up, shooting quirls

and other thins, what i found was is whether it was my father-in-law t.j. kemp or my daddy, leonard collins they had a commonality. the commonality is they understood gun ownership meant gun responsibility. as i was driving home i thought, what can we do in the ninth district of georgia to promote responsible gun ownership? here's that word responsible again. we have to be responsible with what we have. we're going to have gun safety events. we put on gun safety events and over 300 people atened these events. they were put on by the sheriff's department. many people were going out and buying guns for the first time, so in my district gun shops were overflowing and people were buying guns and i said what can we do to make sure gun rights and ownership are plansed with the responsibility that is given? and these people showed up and learned, learned how to restore their weapon, how to take care

of their weapon, what they should do and what they shouldn't do. that is responsible government. that is taking what we do here and making it matter to the folks on main street to the high schools and stores an shops we go into. at's what's going to put responsibility back on the map, when we attach it to the dinner table, when we get to the point where we say this is why it matters instead of the vast rhetoric of this world, then we'll be able to say, people will look at us and say that's why they think a balanced budget is necessary. that's why the obamacare legislation is so bad. not because we're fighting against a president we don't like but because it doesn't make sense. it cost us jobs. it cost us money. it cost our people trust in the government. that i hold so dear.

you see, you move to fiscal responsibility or like i say here, fiscal irresponsibility, only up here can you talk about it and i was in state government and i dealt in similar terms but i remember here the first two weeks in my chamber, you can debate the good and bad but i spent $60 up ion my first two weeks the georgia budget in two weeks. i wasn't in georgia, i wasn't in kansas anymore toto. i wasn't there, something wasn't making sense. we've got to get back to a fiscal responsibility approach. it's a national disgrace. and it's a national disgrace. because you can't go into anyone's household, knock off the zeros, whatever you want to do and apply it to your family budget. if you happen to be watching tonight or you see this later,

just apply the same concept to your home budget. we can come to the understanding that numbers don't lie. $1 trillion in debt, you're taking in this amount of money, spending this amount of money and you can't reconcile the two, it's not because we're making a better country it's because we're not making the hard choices that you have to make every day in your home and in your businesses and that's what we've got to get back to. that's what this country needs to get back to. it is not about the vast rhetoric. we can debate the big things all we want but we have to understand when we debate the big things and misthe small things, people lose trust in us. we've got to stop that. that's why i believe the republican budget presents a smart, fiscally sound policy. it allows hardworking georgians and missourians and others to keep more of their own money. that's a novel concept. i truly believe, as much as i

like this city and i love to go at night and see lynn cop, i love to go see jefferson memorial, to look around at the museums an see the history that oozes from this place but i want to come here and spend my money and i want to fobes from georgia to come up here and spend their hard-herbed money, their tourist $, i don't want georgians or anyone else to have to look to the government to be sending money, i want us to be able to earn money and to have a free enterprise system that works again. it is not crippled by government that's too big or oo larm. we are working to balance it again in 10 years which is a novel concept, because on the other side of the aisle they don't think a balanced budget is necessary. the house budget cuts $4.6 trillion over the next decade, it simplifies the tax code, repeal os because macare, protects medicare and increases

energy exploration. we can tell you the how, we can tell you the what, but why -- but what about why? why does this mat her why do these things i just talk about matter because they end up putting more responsibility in individual household. they put more money in individual bill folds. they end up getting the government back in proportion it has. fire is a grea thing. i love fire. i love a fear outside. alove a pit outside. as long as that fire is wonderful, is when it's inside its constraints. when it's inside the fire pit you cook wit, warm yourself wit, you can make sure it doesn't burn down the forest. but once it's outside the fire ring, it can burn down the whole forest. i live in an area inhabited with a lot of forests. i'm going to say the same thing is true, what matters in our budget and why it matters to

most americans, we can't allow the debt and the crushing debt to begin to get outside as it has already, outside of that ring. and start taking everything else with it. i wish that the administration felt the same as i did but they don't. what happens in theirs their budget as opposed to balancing has more taxes, more spending, more borrowing the same things we have gotten into. i heard a friend across the aisle talk about the issue if you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result it's the definition of insanity. we're doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. we have to cut spending to get a plansed budget. you have to do things in a budget that's so overgrown. the first thing we immediate to do is begin cutting, remembering, for those of you who say no and you're looking at the screen and saying we've got to raise taxes, we did that at the end of the year.

t's now time for some cutting. when we look ahead, also looked at fiscal responsibility and that's why i was pleased the house adopted an amendment for camp merrill where our rangers are trained, it will transfer the land from forestry to the d.o.d. which will ensure we save millions of dollars in taxpayer money at camp merrill while providing them increased amount of security and in doing so, i believe this makes commonsense and for some who will say, you know what does that matter to me? it matters when i look at the situation, this is inside my district, they told me that two government agencies, d.o.d. and forestry have been negotiating for 20 years. 20 years. an agency of the government, an agency of the government both paid by mine and your tax dollars, both serving us, as we

go, as americans, individually and collectively, two agencies took 20 years and could not come to a resolution. in fact they almost came to a resolution an then one government agency wanted $10 million more just to boot at the end. that is wrong. that is why people look at government. they look at the process and say it doesn't work. you condition get away with that in the business world, i've been in the business world, if it takes you 20 years to gesht a simple business proposition you're going to be bankrupt before you get there. that's why this matters. but also we have to look at a constitutionally limited government. our founders envision a federal government that was strong enough to hold the states together, protect our nation, but limited in its authority in citizens' lives but unfortunately many in the current administration and culture in washington and refuse to accept the limits placed on them by the

constitution and as congress we have to take back our role. when we take back our role, have oversight and control the purr strings and we'll do what we need to do. limit e-- limiting the and ower of democrats is regulates is one of my highest priorities. when we looked at this i started with congressman ted yoho out of florida, we started a freshman working group. i introduced the sunshine for settlement decrees which has been marked up recently in subcommittee and will come to the full subcommittee and the floor of this house very soon. i believe regulations are beginning of the end. to the increasing i want show you what i mean by this. the amount of red tape that continues to grow in this administration and in all fairness previous administrations is way too much. when we start back at 2002 and

we look at the in-- 2000 and we look at the increasing number of regulations, then we see what is happening and we went from the 170,000 to 180,000 up to a quarter of a million and this is just in this time frame. look at the last five to six years, how regulations have just expanded. we cannot continue this path. why does this matter to you? some of are you sitting here saying, oh, here's just another republican, here's just another republican talking about, you know, he just wants to make dirty water and dirty air and do all those things and i've heard those arguments but i'm frankly tired of those arguments because i live here too and i want my children, remember i said the three reasons i wanted to be here were my children. i don't want my children and my grandchildren that i have not seen to have dirty water and dirty air and unsafe workplaces. but there is a limit to what government can do and we have done a lot. so i want to say, this is why -- and then you say, well, if that's just you talking about why does it matter to me? i'm going to tell you why it matters and it should matter to every tax paying family in this

country. every american, everybody. i don't think -- i don't single out any groups, i take us all as a whole. we're americans. and how do we know this affects you? look right here. what are regulations costing us? the american family pays $14,678 in hidden annual regulatory taxes. $14,678. i mean, that's a lot of money. i mean, i know in washington this is just a drop in the bucket and when we put it out to the american families it's just one at a time and we don't care, but in northeast georgia, $15,000 will do a lot. for my family, i have a senior and a freshman, in high school now, actually the high school i went to, it's mazing that it hasn't changed a whole lot in the only three or four years since i was last there, unfortunately it's almost 30 years now, but what has happened is that amount of money, that $15,000, if doug collins' family

said, what can we do with that $15,000, or what could jim and sali do in south florida or in sal or in arizona or north carolina, when you have families sitting down and talking about their budgets and talking about what they want, here's what they could do. they could buy a new car. 013ed for fiesta, -- 2013 ford fiesta. or better yet, and i heard it from this well passionately explained by a member of the loyal group, my friends from across the aisle, in talking about education and the importance of education and i believe that as well. what it could do in georgia is this, it could send their kids to college. one year of tuition and fees at the university of georgia, $10,262. we can talk about these big things, all we want. we can talk about $17 trillion debt, we can talk about budgets that don't balance, we can talk about scandals that are coming out like pez dispensers, we can talk about all of these things

but it starts about what i talked about earlier and it goes back to -- it doesn't matter what the big picture are. and what it is. to people. if they don't understand why it matters to them. and i'm standing here tonight as a member of the republican -- proud member of the republican conference, as a conservative. and if you don't believe me, just look at my voting record. because i believe conservative principles matter. why do they matter? because i believe they're the very things that we can explain why they matter by looking at things like this and showing where regulations are hurting our businesses and hurting our jobs. and i can explain to you why $17 trillion debt hurts us. and i can explain because it takes us away from buying the cars that end up in an industry, that building houses and adding additions or sending our children to college. that's why it matters. that's why conservative principles matter and if we've not done a good job articulating that then shame on us. because that's what matters.

it is the individual families. it is the individual hopes that we share. so as i come to a close tonight, and having a wonderful time explaining why i believe conservatism matters and why conservatism is relevant for today, i believe it's individual freedom, i believe it's fiscal responsibility, i believe it's constitutionally limited government, and i will continue to view my decisions through those glasses. and there will be times that we're not all going to agree. and our side, across the aisle, we're not going to agree. but that's what this place is for. it's a place for healthy debate. it's a place in which we can share big ideas. but if we as a body lose the reason we are here, if we lose the fact that we're not here representing always the big ideas or the things that are abstract, when we disconnect ourselves from the dinner tables and the coffee shops and the

hardware stores, then we have disconnected ourselves from our purpose for being here. and frankly, madam speaker, i don't want to do that. i'm going to be in this well talking about what matters and highlighting things that may not be real sexy to the press, they may not want to put it in the paper, but it matters to the american people and i want to encourage our body here on the house and our friends across the way in the upper chamber and this administration to say, let's come together. i believe conservative principles matter. i believe conservative issues are what will get us back to the thriving economy and the jobs that we need to be focused on. but it's going to take work. it's going to take explaining. and it's not going to be something we can just brush off. it's going to have to be something that we take seriously so that we can go to our individuals that we see in our grocery stores and our service stations and our high school football games and basketball games and baseball games and we can look our friends and neighbors in the eye and say, this is what i'm trying to do.

i'm trying to get congress back to the role of understanding. it's about what happens to you. not what happens to us. when we do that, then america is much better off. i appreciate my friend from missouri being here tonight and discussing these important topics with me. the principles we set forward tonight will help guide not only myself but others in the months ahead but also notice that i have been joined by a friend from north carolina and would be happy to yield to my friend from north carolina if she would like to say something. ms. foxx: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i came down for another purpose. but i want to compliment you on the job that you've done tonight and say, as a freshman, i think you have picked up very quickly on the issues involved here and i commend you for taking the time to explain things so well tonight to the american people. mr. collins: i appreciate that. your work here is something that

i can look up to and i appreciate that so much. and friends from all over, congressman bachmann, and others who share this. week of got to share this message. it matters. and we never can lose sight, even in the months, the 435, we represent 700,000 or more, that they're looking to us. for good, conservative commonsense values. the challenge that our nation faces are great but the resiliency of the american spirit is even greater. i'm encouraged by the accomplishments of this body and what we have put forward from the majority and the dedication and commitment of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. when we look at this, we can never forget that the responsibility of the bounty that we have can only be matched by our vigilance to the responsibility to the abundance we've been given. and we keep vigilant, then we'll keep our eyes on the right prize. we'll keep our eyes on what mat matters and we'll keep our eyes on our families and for me it always goes back to three reasons. jordan, copeland and cameron. and a beautiful lady i call my bride of 25 years, lisa.

that's why i'm here. because they represent all the other families and nieces and nephews across this country that we can help if we get our act together. and explain to them why this place matters. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 303, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 5, to support state and local accountability for public education, protect state and local authority, inform parents of the performance of their children's schools and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the

chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, for 30 minutes. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, i thank you for the recognition and i want to thank the founders and the american people for the privilege of being able to serve in the united states congress and also for the form of government that they gave to us. we just heard a wonderful speech given on why it matters. why it's so important that we stand up for this concept that was given to all of us, why our -- by our founders. because this nation is different from all other nations for a reason and that's why we're so proud of it and we need to say that once and a while. why it does matter. there are issues before us now that our nation is looking at and it seems as though sometimes we can -- it seems like life goes on and we aren't shocked and yet here in washington, d.c., we end up being shocked over and over again because most

of us come here very normal people, a part of different various levels of the fabric of society. we bring our accumulated experiences here and we deliberate, trying to make the best decisions that we possibly can. why? so that our country can be better than it was before. because the one thing that we know looking forward, we want to make sure what we have now is enhanced, not just for ourselves but for the next generation. there's a reason why we've put so much time into our children, into our nephews and nieces, into our grandchildren. because we know that they're going to carry the baton. we get our moment in the sun for a certain period of our life and then we hand the baton on to the next generation. that's also a part of why it matters. well, today i was in financial services committee, mr. speaker, and when i was in financial services committee, we were honored, we had before our committee the chairman of the federal reserve, mr. ben bernanke.

he has served faithfully for nearly 10 years. and under his leadership at the federal reserve, we've seen extraordinary changes in our financial system. never before had we seen something quite like the federal reserve opening the fed's discount window to private investment banks. we saw the federal reserve giving subsidized access to companies that we've never seen before and we've seen the results of that within our economy. many people call this a jobless recovery. a jobless recovery is no recovery at all. because if you don't have a job, if you don't have a good-paying job, if you don't have increased benefits, you got trouble. you got trouble because i believe it's all about americans first, about american wages first, about american jobs first, and about american benefits first. i've made a note, mr. speaker, when i was in committee today

and i noted that the debt clock was running, there's not a tv in the financial services room -- it was on a tv in the financial services room, and the number 17 was up there. and 17 is $17 trillion. which is a lot of money. when i came into congress, mr. speaker, we were $8.67 trillion in debt and we were all looking around wondering how in the world will we ever pay back $8.67 trillion in debt? that was january of 2007. we're now in 2013. so something over six years later we have nearly doubled the national debt. that's the baton that we're handing to the next generation. it isn't a light-weight titanium baton, this is the baton that's made out of one of the heaviest substances on earth, what does that mean? that means if you're a runner in a marathon or a runner in a race, you'd much prefer to have a light-weight titanium baton that you're carrying as opposed

to a very heavy, weighted-down burden that you're trying to run with. well, that would be a pleasure compared to what we're handsing off to the next generation in terms of debt burden. this is what i found today, mr. speaker. during the financial services committee hearing. we went for approximately three hours during the hearing and i noted that the debt clock was at $17 trillion, so many billion, but it was at about $195 million. and i watched that debt clock throughout the time that mr. bernanke sat at the desk. and after about three hours we had accumulated in this country an additional $400 million in debt. i waited patiently because i had a question that i wanted to ask chairman bernanke. and i watched the numbers go up and i watched the numbers go up. and i turned to one of my colleagues on my left, mr. mchenry, who serves very honorably from the state of

north carolina, and i said, take a look, mr. mchenry. the debt has increased over $50 million just since we got started. he said, are you kidding? i said, no, it really has. take a look at the clock. and i looked. pretty soon it was $75 million. then it was over $100 million. and it grew and it grew until in hree hours' time we added $400 million to the national debt. this is the question i wanted to ask the federal reserve chair. e number at the top is .16,699,421,095,673 .60 what is this? it's the debt limit.

up?do i put this number $16 trillion. something very weird happened in the united states government. on july 12, on the treasury department daily debt sheet. they put this up on the internet. n that sheet they recorded $16 ,699,396,000,000 to the penny. that number stayed the same for 56 days straight. in three hours time you can accumulate $400 million in additional debt because washington, d.c. and this congress and this president just can't seem to figure out how to stop spending more money than they take in. if we accumulate that debt in three hours, i asked the federal reserve chair this question

today in financial services, how could it possibly be that for 56 days the spending seemingly stood still and not one additional penny was added to the national debt? how could that possibly be? how could it possibly be that magicically by some freak thing, the national debt stayed at the exact same dollar amount just, oh, $25 billion below the national debt limit? how could that be? even though he has been the federal reserve chair for 10 years, he had no idea how that could happen. he didn't even know that it happened. he didn't know that for 56 days in a row, there wasn't one single change in the debt limit even though in a three-hour period of time, we add over $400 million in new debt. how could that be?

part of the reason, he speculated, is perhaps the treasury used what they call their extraordinary means to be able to deal with the debt ceiling. you see, mr. speaker, what happened? is we shattered a ceiling all right. we shattered a glass ceiling. we broke through our debt limit and we broke through last may 17. but you see this government wanted to wink and they wanted to nod and they wanted to play games with the american people. and so for 56 days they acted like we weren't spending more money than what we took in. i know if my children did that to me, that would be called a lie in our house. that is not acceptable to my husband and i. you don't lie to us. one thing that the federal government should never do to the people who pay the bills in this country is lie to them. and it seems to me that that's what this number is, for 56 days

they are pretending that we aren't adding any debt when of course we added debt. because on today's debt clock, we're over $17 trillion. why does this matter? why is this so important? because this body is about to engage a policy that will structuraly dr structurally change this country forever and that is granting perpetual amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens. why does it matter? it matters on so many different levels. because as i showed on this chart, we're broke. we're broke because this top number, the debt limit, this means that we owe this money. we don't have it sitting in a vault somewhere. if you go to the u.s. treasury and open it up, you don't open it up and find stacks of $100

bills. there's nothing in there if you go to the vault. that's the problem. and we are making the problem worse and worse and worse. and at the worst possible time, mr. speaker, now the united states congress is considering adding trillions of dollars more and the current estimate by the heritage foundation is we would be adding $6 trillion more ecause you see, mr. speaker, amnesty is terribly expensive. it costs a fortune, because the average estimate is that the average illegal alien that comes into the united states is approximately 34 years of age. they come in with less than a tenth grade education and by the time they are 34 years of age, they aren't going back to school to get a high school diploma or college degree. and what we have found the

average illegal alien who does in does pay taxes, maybe $10,000 a year in taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, various user fees they'll pay, but the other estimate is that they pull out of the u.s. treasury over $30,000 a year in public subsidies and benefits. this is extremely expensive. that means for each person that comes in, we are looking at a cost of over $20,000 per person per year. so rather than adding to our society in the form of adding to our treasury, we are drawing down from the treasury and going backwards faster than even this debt clock is showing us that we are going faster. i'll tell you what i'm hearing from home, mr. speaker. people are saying, can you tell me why in the world we are not actually securing our border?

and i say you are asking a very good question. ronald reagan promised it back in the mid-1980's saying i have a one time deal for you, we will give amnesty to one million country.people in this that turned into 3.6 million people. when people heard there was going to be a gift given, more people wanted in on that gift and more people came across and 3.6 million people were granted amnesty and we were told the border would be secured and 27 years later we are still waiting to have that border secure. a promise was given, but a promise wasn't kept. we went even further than that. in this very chamber in the house of representatives, we passed another bill dealing with border security.

because people said what's going on? it could be five million, now it could be 10 million. back in 2006, this body decided in its wisdom, it would pass a bill to actually secure the border to the point we would build a fence. this body passed the bill and went to president bush's desk and signed into law and this body agreed, we will build a fence on our southern border and what's more than that? something that congress doesn't often do? it paid for the fence. it actually appropriated the money. we gave the money to build the fence, the design, the whole works. we were going to get her done. here we are, mr. speaker, 27 years after the promise made by ronald reagan, no fence. seven years after the bill passed the house of representatives and was paid for, no fence. my question, mr. speaker, where's the fence?

if we don't have a fence seven years after we passed the law, where's the money? i think the american people have the right to ask, give me my fence or give me my fence. we need some answers. this phony bill that came out of the united states senate that said legalization first for illegal aliens, border security probably never, the american people looked at that bill and said are you kidding me? you see, the american people are pretty smart and aren't going to be taken for a ride a third time. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. the american people are saying no dice. we aren't going to have anything to do with this this time. the times have changed. the economy has soured since 1987. the economy has soured since

2006. we have massive unemployment like we have not seen for decades. and in the midst of this unemployment, mr. speaker, we have 22 million americans today that are looking for a full-time job. 22 million americans. and we're going to legal idse by granting amnesty to tens of millions of new illegal aliens who have come into this country and compete for jobs that 22 million american citizens would love to have? it doesn't make any sense. you see, the united states chamber of commerce came out with a brand new survey. they went to the number one job creators in this country, who are small businesses. and small businesses said three out of four of them, as a matter of fact, said that obamacare is causing them to fire their full-time workers. obamacare is causing them to reduce the number of hours that

their full-time workers have. and they are actually looking at also at only hiring part-time workers. this just isn't big business or small business. even a letter came out from three unions that were sent to speaker pelosi and also majority leader harry reid in the senate and it said this. it was from james hoffa signed one of the letters, and he said hey, mr. president, we were with you. as a matter of fact, we put boots on the ground for you, mr. president. we got you re-elected in this last election, mr. president. we went out and said that your bill was a good bill, mr. president. you told us that if we liked our health care, we could keep it, mr. president. and they're saying that's not what's happening. because we fought for the backbone of the middle class, which is a 40-hour workweek. and now i paraphrase in this

letter, mr. hoffa said, that now we are looking at a new normal 30-hour ew normal is a workweek. now you have the american people who have to support their families, may for their car on a 30-hour work week and guess what? that would be without health care. and so there's steam coming out of the ears of these unions, they are so angry because all that the unions fought for to have a decent wage and benefit packages for the american people, they see it going out the window. and at the same time, they're being expected to fall in line with the president's agenda and go along with amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens o are fighting for those

30-hour-a-week jobs. i go back to what i said earlier. we are looking at handing the baton to the next generation. and what is it we're leaving them? what is it that we're giving them? are we gisk them more jobs? doesn't look like it. labor participation rates are falling. are we giving them higher wages? i don't think so. because when president obama took office in 2008, the average household income was $55,000 a year. and then a story came out this last year that the average household income has dropped from $55,000 to $50,000 a year. study came out this april. harvard study. said the loss in the average household income can be attributed to illegal aliens in the united states in the amount

of $1,300 a year. that might not seem a lot of money to the big elites who thinks it's great to have amnesty, but it means a lot, $1,300 a year who is making it on $50,000 a year for their annual household income. and there are a lot of people who would love to make $50,000 for their annual household income and can't get anywhere near that. why in the world, i ask you, would we want to disadvantage a woman who is a hispanic who works in this country, maybe she is doing her best working as a wait tress, maybe working in an office, maybe working cleaning hotel rooms to try and help her family out. why would we disadvantage her by bringing in more people to compete for her job and compete for her benefit package?

why in the world would we disadvantage african-american youth in the inner city who have an unbelievable unemployment rate who the last few summers have gone as high as 46% unemployment. my heart breaks for african-american kids in inner cities who can't get jobs and we need to help president obama achieve his number one political goal in his second term? we are barely six months into president obama's second term, and why i can't begin to understand are we tripping over ourselves to make sure that we have even more competition for the low-skilled workers who are having trouble even finding jobs and even finding wage and benefit packages? we can do so much better than that, mr. speaker. i know we can. that's why we have to focus on border security, because border security is what the american people are asking of us, because

it's america first, america jobs first, america wages first and american benefits first. . i'd also like to talk about other people who are looking for help and relief and that's senior citizens. senior citizens tend to live in a fixed income and they're nervous. they're nervous that their money isn't going to be worth what it was. and they should be. because, you see, when, as i said, this is the fiction that e were all told, that at $16 trillion, which is our debt and of course it isn't, it's well over $17 trillion now, when the federal government continues to spend money that it doesn't have, and so it quite literally just makes it up, let's face it, the federal reserve chair ben bernanke was asked in committee today in financial services, mr. bernanke, does the federal reserve when it borrows money,

does it print money? is that what it's doing? and his answer was, well, not literally. but the point being, yes, they make it up. they make it up in the form of a computer with digits in it. and so somebody every important gets -- every morning writes on the magic fairy keys and the treasury department mutts a request to the federal reserve and the treasury department says to the federal reserve in essence, say, federal reserve, we're about, oh, maybe $4 billion short today, do you think you could loan us the money? and the federal reserve says, sure, we'll be happy to. so they type on their keys -- here's $4 billion. and in exchange, the treasury department sends over an email that says, i.o.u. $4 billion. everybody's happy. so one hand reaches into this pocket and hands the money to this pocket. the only problem is, mr. speaker, there's no money that

ever gets exchanged. it's just a conversation. a made-up conversation. how does that impact a senior citizen, mr. speaker? who is at home listening right now, who has, let's say $30,000 sitting in a bank, and they're hoping that that $30,000 can still buy them a year from now $30,000 worth of goods. well, when you keep talking to each other, the federal reserve to the treasury, and you're just making up money, all that does is lower the value of what a senior citizen has in the bank. so rather than $30,000 in the bank, at the end of the year, maybe that's worth $29,500. maybe that's worth $29,000. because the value of that money keeps getting diluted and diluted and diluted because the federal government in essence is stealing the value of what these in the bank.ns put

it is a form of legalized theft. now, what morality is it that allows a government to steal from senior citizens, steal future opportunities from the next generation, i call that immorality. theft is immorality. you don't steal from your grandparents. you don't steal from your parents. you certainly don't steal from your children. but yet that's what we're doing. and then when we add in this consequentialal issue -- consequential issue that will structurally change america forever and we're telling ourselves that we have an obligation to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens, let's talk for a second about that bill in the senate. the bill that the senate passed is perpetual amnesty. it would never again allow for the federal government to meaningfully be able to deport any illegal alien ever again.

it almost works like magic. an illegal alien gets into the united states, all they have to do is say the magic words to the i.c.e. agents who may pick them up and they say, i want to apply for political asylum. once they say that, this may shock some of the people who are watching tonight, once an illegal alien says to an i.c.e. agent, i want to sign for -- i want to apply for political asylum, they would be granted at taxpayer expense a lawyer. and that lawyer would help them to gain their u.s. citizenship. what a deal. so you come into the united states, you eventually are on your, quote, path to citizenship , at taxpayer expense, and what form of benefits would be available to you? well, under the senate bill, you can immediately get a social security card, and you can immediately get access to a driver's license. if you have a social security

card, mr. speaker, and if you have access to a driver's license, there's an awful lot of advantages that you could have very quick. you can apply for a lot of public subsidized benefits that can be yours. and you've got an identity and you're on your way. what i don't understand, mr. speaker, is that in this country , we're generous. we're extremely generous. every year we allow one million people who are not american citizens, who are foreigners, we welcome with open arms one million people a year as new u.s. citizens into this country. that's amazing. we've got something over $300 million people, and we say -- 300 million people and we say come in, a million, every year. mr. speaker, if you look at all the countries in the world, there's over, what, 120 countries, more than that, in the world. if you add up every country in the world, mr. speaker, and a

lot of countries have a lot more population than we have, if you add up all those countries combined, they don't allow as many new immigrants into their countries, into all the countries of the world, as the united states of america does. in one year. we are amazing in our generosity. plus there are four million people on a waiting list every year, waiting to get into the united states. we have a system of immigration. we have a system that's worked for years. the problem is, we have a lot of people that don't want to wait for that system to work. four million people are waiting. are on the waiting list now. one million people got in this year. legally. why is it again that we are tripping over ourselves to help the people who have broken our laws, who are in this country? why is it that we aren't saying to those people, we have a waiting list, you need to go and

apply and get on the waiting list and wait your turn and then you can come into the country too? why are we trying to figure out a by a to fast track the illegal people? shouldn't we be apologizing to the people then, the four million people, who are on that waiting list? i also wonder, people ask me, mr. speaker, i also wonder why that's our top priority. why wouldn't our top priority, mr. speaker, be the 22 million people who are american citizens who are looking for full-time employment right now? shouldn't that be our top priority? trying to figure out how we can find them a job? you know, it's really interesting to me, in the survey that came out today from the chamber of commerce, they found that of all the small businesses in america, only 17%, fewer than one out of five small businesses, hired anybody in the last two years. i'm going to say that again.

the chamber of commerce found in a survey that of all the small businesses in america, less than 17%, less than one out of five small businesses, and they're the engine of this economy, hired anybody on a full-time basis in the last two years. that's a very sad commentary. there's not a lot of hiring. that's why i say america first. jobs first. wages for americans first. benefits for americans first. that's how sad this, quote, jobless recovery has been, which is no recovery at all. here's what's even worse. less than 20% of small businesses say that in the next two years do they have any plans at all to hire. if we know that only 17% of small businesses have hired in the last two years and less than 20% will hire in the next two years, i don't think that we should be giving amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens.

let's focus, mr. speaker, on america first, let's focus on finding jobs for those 22 million who are looking for full-time jobs, let's focus on increasing the wages for american workers first, and let's focus on increasing the benefit packages for americans first. that's what we need to do, mr. speaker. and i thank the american people for this opportunity to be a representative and stand in the greatest well that there is in the world, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for the remainder of the time, which is until 10:00 p.m. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to say first it's a privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and it's also interesting and engaging to listen to the gentlelady from minnesota as she delivered her presentation here

tonight with the typical vigor and provision and i looked at that poster and it was very interesting to me and so i see that $400 million in three hours and i divide that out, multiply it times 24 and then multiply that times 56 days, and i come up with a number that's $179,200,000 in an increase in national debt in the time that nun is registered. so putting this in perspective, it's just another example of an administration that hasn't been straight with us. so i come here, mr. speaker, to address this situation of immigration, as the gentlelady from minnesota has. it's something that's important for all of us to understand, the big picture, the full picture. and it is about economics, it's about culture, it's about civilization, it's about balancing our budget, it's about the vitality of the united states of america. and we have to be weighing all

of these factors. the immigration issue is the most complex and the most far-reaching topic that we ever deal with here in the united states congress. and we think that obamacare has complicated -- is complicated, it is. it's a lot of pages of legislation. but the bad things that are flowing from it were predicted here from this spot by many of us on our side of the aisle. it was understandable for us. but because it's somewhat objective to be able to look at the formulas and see what's going to happen and know what insurance policies do, the immigration issue goes deeper. and it's the multiplication of current democrat grasks and how they blend with future demographics and what we might do and all of the things that flow from it. so, as the gentlelady from minnesota said, the net cost on the senate's gang of eight bill turns out to be $6.3 trillion. 6.3 trillion, mr. speaker. let's see, they will -- the net

cost $6.3 trillion, they will pay -- there's $9.4 trillion altogether dealing with this, there will be $3.1 trillion in taxes paid to benefits, $9.4 trillion in benefits drawn down by the group of people who would be given amnesty under the senate version of the bill. they would pay $3.1 trillion in taxes over their lifetime and the net figure would be $6.3 trillion that come out of the pocket of the taxpayers to add onto that nearly $17 trillion in national debt that we have today. and the study that was done by robert rector of the heritage foundation, i saw a little piece on the internet here a couple of nice nights ago where someone described it as the much-maligned study. i'm occasionally the much-maligned member of congress. but i don't notice that makes me any less accurate or any less factual in the positions that i take. there are soundly based and so were the analysis and the study done by robert rector in his

study to show us the net cost of the amnesty act that's passed out of the senate today and not yet messaged to the house, but passed out of the senate. and that's just the economic cost. and he showed by formula, there are always exceptions to this when you're dealing with human beings, there are always exceptions, but by form larks newly arriving, those that are here illegally, those that would come in the next waves or two, as mrs. bachmann said, there would be an average of about 10th grade education, people who are high school dropouts or high school graduates on average cannot sustain themselves in this society without welfare benefits. we are a cradle-to-grave welfare state. we have at least 80 different means-tested welfare programs in the united states. and they range from the food stamp program to temporary assistance to needy families, the w.i.c. program, it goes on and on. heat subsidy, rent subsidy, no

one has them all memorized, mr. speaker. which means no one can figure out how they interrelate with each other, how they interact with each other or how people react on that interaction of those 80 different means-tested welfare programs. but we even know this, at a certain point, if you pile on more and more welfare, even those who are quite ambitious are eventually going to concede that those folks that aren't working are living better than those that are working hard and smart. and so what it does is, in a way it bribes people to leave the work force and go on the welfare roles or transition from the work force into the welfare rolls. that's going on all over america. that's one of the reasons why in this country of about 316 million people, we have -- we have so many people that are on the welfare system and of this work force that mrs. bachmann talked about, 22 million who are looking for a full-time job. here's some other data from the

department of labor's website. you go and look at the numbers there of those who are simply not in the work force. now, they might have retired early on their own money, they might be on s.s.i. disability, they might be on -- they might be on anything i guess -- all but unemployment, those folks, they might be home makers, they might be in school, they might be doing nothing. >> when you add 13 million people, it's clear for the last five to six years, we have had over 100 million people in this country who are not in the work force but are of working age. i don't conclude every one of them can go to work or suitable for work. but i would say this, if we need more work force, mr. speaker, why in the world would we grant

amnesty, a path to citizenship and full access to those 80 means-tested federal welfare programs for 33 million people that are here in the united states illegally, why would we give american jobs while we have americans here not in the work force. we should be constantly thinking, pushing and promoting legislation that increases the average annual individual productivity of the people in our country. and i have watched as some of the libertarian cato economists will tell us, we have to open up r borders to bring in 55 million people because that's how we grow our economy and we can't grow our economy unless we do that. the fertility rate is higher with illegal immigrants.

i think that's drawing a conclusion that's not supportable by the data that's out there. might be by just observation. to give them jobs while americans are looking for jobs is the wrong thing to do. and just because someone increases the g.d.p. doesn't mean they are a net contributor to our society. anyone who is 50 years old and never worked a day in their life, that person hasn't contributed to the g.d.p., perhaps by what they consumed. they can't be a net increase. if that individual goes out and does an hour's worth of work and receive an hour's worth of pay and produces a product that has marketable value, they've contribute todd the gross domestic product by the value of that hour's work that they've

contributed. so by that theory, cato economists say all the people we would legalize that are illegal today, presuming they will work, they will help grow our economy. sure, they would. but they would contribute to the net loss to the taxpayers because they can't sustain themselves. that doesn't mean there aren't good, smart, productive illegal immigrants that can't be an increase to our economy. but statistically, by far, by wide margin, the lower undereducated cannot contribute. they cannot be a net contributor to this society. that's proven clearly by the heritage foundation study done by robert rector and something the american people need to look at. so i put this argument out in this way, mr. speaker.

i used to take the position that there was nothing in the senate gang of eight's amnesty bill that was good for the american people. why would americans do this? why. there was an op ed four months ago and the author laid out some of the data and the last sentence was one word, a question, why? why would america do this? why would we bring in the equivalent of the population of canada and throw in new zealand's population, if i remember his statement correctly. why? not because it contributes to the social, economic or cultural well-being of the united states of america. that wouldn't be why. that isn't the kind of immigration policy we need. but isn't it true that no americans benefit from this. if you look at narrow self-interests, there are three categories that benefit from the

illegal immigration they would like to see legalized and perpetual of new immigration coming in so they are lined up. three categories of people. one are the elitists that somehow they have a birthright to live in gated communities and have cheap labor and mow their lawns and wash their car and make sure it is smooth. that's an elitist attitude if they want to have discounted labor to do that. had a meeting with a group of elitists in the northeast and they said, i want down to the day labor parking place and i needed somebody to come up and weed my garden and clean up around the place and i offered him $15 and no one would take the money. you got to pass an immigration bill. i don't have enough access to

people that can take care of my lawn, garden. he thought $15 should have hired anybody. but a lot of years since he worked for $15. i said if you don't have time to do that yourself, maybe you should get an apartment down in the big city and sell your house to either pay the wages necessary or do it themselves. that's how the economy has to work. it's supply and demand. commodity in of a the marketplace is determined by supply and demand whether it's corn, beans, coal, oil or labor, that's supply and demand. people will say there is work that americans won't do. it's offensive to me to hear that there is work that americans won't do. i don't know if you can find work that my family hasn't done. i'm pretty confident.

but we try to be and try to be hard-working americans and need to be smart and hard-working americans. not good enough to work hard, you have to work smart at the same time. and so when we do that, we market our wages to the point where we can sustain ourselves in this society or if you can't get that done, you supplement it by the 80 means-tested federal welfare programs. when you think of work that americans won't do, when people say that, i argue, no i think you can hire an american to do anything and anything that is just, right and moral. and you have to bid up the price until you get the people to do the work. i have had to do that most of my business life. i started a construction company in 1975 and i had to hire people and i was proud of the work they did and we put long hard hours

in in difficult conditions. in order to have people show up for work the next day, you had to pay them an adequate wage the day before. when i found i couldn't find the right people, i raised the wages and hired the people we needed and kept the people we needed. and that is beyond the realm of the way of thinking of elitist attitudes saying there is work that americans won't do. i said, ok i'll prove it to you. someone has to tront the money to do this. i could hire bill clinton toll mow my lawn, i might have to pay him $1 million, 10 million, how much i want to tease this situation, but you understand my point, mr. speaker? you have to bid it up and some point, someone is going to take the bid, just like when you are going to get on an airplane and start to off the auction and say

i will give you a $400 ticket to fly someplace else. will ante and someone take the bid. you auction it it off. americans will always do the work, mr. speaker. and we have always done the work and we need to keep the work here at home and make sure the people that have the skills and desire are going to work. and if they don't have the desire, it might be the safety net that is our 80 different means-tested federal programs -- you need to dial down so the hammock is not so longer a hammock. when that happens, some of those folks will decide i'm going to climb out of the safety net and i'm going to go to work and contribute to the g.d.p. and earn enough. there was a time not that long ago, 25 years ago, maybe now 30

years ago when a young man could grow up and graduate from high school and look over to the beef plant and decide, i want to get a job there and go punch that time clock and make good wages and make my living in there processing meat. and you need that if you are going to eat it any way. so they would aspire to do so and punch that time clock and work there every day and work there for 40, 45 years. and be making the same amount of money as a teacher does with a college degree. and that went on until they started bringing in illegal labor in to drive the wages down in the packing plants and today teacher is making twice as much as the guy working in the packing plant. and that young man, especially young men, but that young man that decides he doesn't have a future ahead in college, he can no longer go in and punch the

time clock and make a living and pay for a modest house and maybe provide an opportunity for his kids to go to college, that opportunity isn't there anymore and drift off onto the welfare programs and some of them drift off into drugs and leave the community because they are being underbid by people who aren't lawful here in the united states who came here to live in the shadows. my colleagues say we have to of the e 11 million out shadows because it's the right thing to do. well, is it, and what is our moral obligation for those folks? i believe in the dignity of every human person and we owe them that respect and that dignity. but to solve a problem that they created by their own action by sacrificing the rule of law and rewarding people that broke the law with a path to citizenship, americans jobs, the right to vote, as a reward for breaking

the law, do you think they are going to raise their children to respect the rule of law if they are the beneficiaries of breaking it by the tens of millions, 11 million, 22 million, maybe 44 million people? it changes the culture in the united states of america when you inject millions of people in who are rewarded for breaking the law. and my friends down on the senate side and some here in the house, they will say, but they have to go to the back of the line. it's not amnesty. they have to pay a fine and pay back taxes. it is a difficult road to get to citizenship. is it as onerous as living in the shadows. they plug their obama phones to charge them in my office which is the height of an entitlement attitude. they are out in the open lobbying congress as open and blatant as can be, with

disrespect for the rule of law. they erode the rule of law and by the way, outside this country for the 11-plus million people. outside this country are at least five million who respect the law who are lined up in their home country the right way to come into america the legal way. and what do we say to them? we are going to take 11 million people and make them go to what we define as the back of the line, but if it's in the united states, it's not the back of the line. the line is outside the united states. five million long. are they going to say go to the back of the line, get in the back of the line? have you ever mr. speaker stood in a line and thought i'm almost there. it's been a long wait. i want to go in the movie theater or the men's room and the line gets longer instead of shorter. what gets more frustrating than having to back up because

somebody else cut in front? and how long are you going to have patience with that? i oppose amnesty and i support the rule of law. i'm going to continue to defend this rule of law and defend this country so we can send to our children the promise that came from our founding fathers this future of an american destiny among the shining city on the hill. i appreciate your attention and privilege to speak here tonight and we may be out of time. would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from texas have a motion? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i move that we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned

>> the house >> postponed thatl others have health insurance or pay a penalty. replacing the no child left behind legislation law. >> we do not know enough about our first ladies. scratch the surface, and you will find lives surpassed their husbands. examines the public lives and private lives of these women. presentationore weeknights in august at 9:00.

committeese judiciary question about the data collection program. witnesses from the justice department, fbi, and nsa talk about the collection of phone records in the monitoring of internet traffic. this part of the hearing is three hours. >> good morning. the chair is authorized to declare resources at any time really look at everyone -- any time. i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. today's hearing will examine a statutory authority that undered certain programs a act.ve act -- fis there've been expressed concerns

about how the programs are operated, and whether they pose a threat to american civil liberties and privacy. we've assembled to panels a witnesses to help us explore these important issues. ,ast month, edward snowden a cia employee release classified materials on top- secret nsa data collection programs. on june 5, the guardian release declassified order issued by the foreign intelligence surveillance court requested by the fbi to compel the ongoing production for a three-month ore of call detail records metadata. it includes the numbers of both parties on a call, and the time and duration of all calls. on june 6, classified information regarding a second program, the prism program, was reported by the guardian and the washington post. news reports to scrub the program is allowing the nsa to obtain data from electronic

service providers on customers who reside outside the note states, including e-mail, chat, photos, videos, store data, and file transfers. both of these programs are operated pursuant to statutory fisa.ions in size a -- it was enacted to provide for the collection of foreign intelligence. when it was originally enacted in 1978, america was largely concerned with collecting its diligence -- collecting intelligence from the soviet union or terrorist groups. it sets forth procedures for how the government can gather for an intelligence inside the united states about foreign powers and their agents. the intelligence landscape has changed or medically over the last three years pre-today we are confronted with ongoing threat from terrorist organizations, some of which are well structured area most are -- structure.zed most are loosely organized.

the dog belonged to a specific terrorist group read the five is a -- they do not belong to a specific terrorist group. unlike grand jury or administrative subpoenas in criminal investigations, it can simply be issued by a businessr, a fisa record must be approved by a federal judge. cannotess record order be used to search a person's home, to acquire the content of e-mails, or listen to telephone calls pretty can only be used to obtain third-party records pre- critics of the metadata program objective its threat, the collection of metadata, and question whether this program conforms to the intent in enacting section 215 of the

patriot act. i hope here from today's witnesses about this, about how this metadata is relevant to a foreign intelligence or terrorism investigation, and about whether program of this size is valuable and cost- effective and detecting the terrorist plot sprayed in the 40 years since it was enacted, -- terrorist plot. technologies have changed dramatically. the shift from wireless satellite communications to fiber-optic wire communications alter the manner in which foreign communications are transmitted. the use of technology inside the united states to transmit a telephone call have the unintended result of requiring the government to obtain an individualized court order to moderator medication by non-us persons. congress enacted in 2008 and reauthorize the bipartisan amendments act to update our

laws. it permits the attorney general on the attorney -- the director for intelligent to target foreign persons believed to be located outside of the united states to acquire foreign intelligence information. the act requires for the first time in the history of the u.s. prior court approval of government surveillance, using these authorities. derives itsogram authority from section seven -- 702. to the extent the program captures information pertaining to u.s. citizens, that interception can only be incidental, and the handling of such information is governed by court-approved minimization procedures. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today in greater detail about how the government limits its targeting under 7022

702.s -- including the effectiveness of the current auditing of section 702. the terrorist threat is real, and ongoing. the boston bombing reminded us of that. i'm confident that everyone in this room wishes that tragedy could have been riveted. we cannot be printing terrorist attacks of us we can identify and intercept terrorist. ours must ensure that the laws we have enacted our consistent with congressional intent, and that it protects our national security and our civil liberties. we must ensure that america's intelligence gathering system has the trust of the american people. it is my pleasure to recognize breaking member of the committee, mr. connors. lex thank you. -- >> thank you.

we have a judiciary for both of the authorities who are here to act,ss 215 of the patriot and section 702 of the fisa amendment that. over the past decade, the members of this committee have vigorously debated the proper andnce between our safety our constitutional right to privacy. welcoming the two discussioneach today. and they get is an important one. we never had any point in this debate have approved the type of surveile, sweeping of uni --

the united states citizens in the name of fighting the war on terrorism. authorized the government to obtain certain business records only if it can show to the court that the records are relevant to an ongoing national security investigation. what we think we have here is a situation in which, if the government cannot provide a clear, public, explanation for how its program is consistent with the statute, then it must stop collecting this information immediately.

this metadata problem to me has gotten quite far out of hand, even given the seriousness of the problems that surround it, and created its need. i have another concern that pertains to the administration's track record of responding to the criticisms of the programs. know director misstatements, , national security agency directors keith alexander , had to make retractions. even fbi director robert mueller

is not empowered to rewrite history. have is our conversation which requires focusing on improving both more public scrutiny, and congressional oversight of these programs. weeks, thest ministration has asserted that surveillancef this , with congressional support, --some members of the programs in the past. i is not sufficient. -- that is not sufficient. 22 are in a catch-

situation in a classified briefing. we cannot discuss it publicly. certainly not with our constituents. if we skip the briefing, we risk being uninformed and i'm prepared. one simple solution to this problem would be to publicly release significant court opinions, or at the very least, unclassified some -- summaries of the opinions. this solution would have the added benefit of subjecting the government's legal claims to much-needed public scrutiny. over the past decade, the court has developed a body of law that instructs the government about what it may do with the information it collects. reason too legitimate keep this legal analysis from

public interest any longer. if we are to strike the right authorities,these which i think is an important purpose of the hearing today, the me must ring the public into the conversation as soon as it is appropriate, and without delay. releasingalking about any classified information. i am simply asking our constituents to trust us, as i am asking you, and the executive branch, to trust them. the need for more these classification -- morty classification is dominant -- the need for morty classification is dominant for how we should move today.

>> i think the breaking member for his comments. i would say, i share his concern about classified information that does not didn't -- does not need to be classified. definitely be planning a second hearing on the subject where we can ask those questions in a classified setting to again assure ourselves of the answers that we need to read before we get begin -- we need. , all statusning will be part of the record. begin with questions, -- candorer with as much giving the unclassified setting. i wish to caution numbers of the committee that they should be cognizant of this unique dynamic

when phrasing their questions. the fact that certain programs have been laid to does not that they have been declassified. members would be violating the law were they to disclose classified information during this hearing. i would like to note that the committee intends to hold a subsequent briefing farmers so we have an opportunity to impose questions are witnesses that are not appropriate in this open setting. we welcome our first panel today. if you would all please rise, will begin by scoring in the witnesses. -- swearing in the witnesses. but thee truth, nothing truth, so hope you got? >> i do. all the witnesses responded in the affirmative. we will now introduce our witnesses. our first witness is mr. james call. -- cole.

1979 asd the agency in part of the attorney general's honors program and served for 13 years as a trial lawyer in the criminal division. he entered private practice in from 1995as a partner -2010. he has served as chair of the american bar association, why collar crime committee, and as chair of the criminal justice section. he received his degree from the university of colorado, and is doctorate from the university of california at hastings. we are pleased to have his equities with us today. our second witness is the second general counsel of the office of director of national intelligence. previously he was a harder at arnold and porter, and serve as a member of the advisory committee to the standing committee on law and national security at the american bar

association from 1994-1999. he started -- he served as deputy general. he began his career for edward weidenfeld of the southern district of new york. he earned his bachelors degree from harvard university, and his law degree from el. we welcome his expertise. the third witness is john english,s -- john acting as the agency's chief of investigation. he was promoted to nsa senior hecutive service in 1997, subsequently served in a variety of senior leadership assignments, and twice served away from headquarters as a

nicestg professor at the military academy, and later as the u.s. especially eggs onto the united kingdom. special envoyes in united kingdom. he holds advanced degrees in engineering, and computer science from columbia university, johns hopkins, and the george washington university. we thank him for joining us and sharing his expertise. on the first panel, stephanie douglas, executive director of national security branch of the federal bureau of investigation. she began as a special agent with the fbi in november, 1989, she first reported to the washington field office where , publiced well in crime corruption, national security matters. she returned to the fbi headquarters in 2007.

theserved an fbi detail to counterintelligence center as well as supervisory's rational agents foreign intelligence gaddafi washington field office intelligence special field office. she earned her bachelor's degree in history at the university of tennessee. we are pleased to have her share her expertise with us today. we thank you for joining us. we will turn first to mr. cole for his testimony. >> thank you. -- as of the committee members of the committee. programs, we are constantly seeking to achieve the right balance between the protection of national security and the protection of privacy and civil liberties. we have believe these programs

have achieve the right balance. neither is a program that has been hidden away or off the books. all three branches of government play a significant role in the oversight of these programs. plays a role in authorizing the programs and overseeing compliance, and the executive branch conducts extensive reviews to assure compliance. it determines whether the law should be authorized, and in what form. i would like to explain in more detail how this works with respect to each of the programs. the215 program involves collection of metadata from telephone calls. are maintained by the phone companies.

they include the date and time of the call, and the length of the call. they do not include names or other personal identifying information. we do not include cell sites -- or other information. the not include the content of any phone calls. these are the kinds of records under long-standing supreme court precedent are not protected by the fourth amended. the short court ordered you have seen published in the newspapers only allows the government to acquire these phone records, it is not allow the government to access or use them. as cover by another more detailed court owner. that court order provides the government can only search the data if it has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the phone number being searched is associated with certain terrorist organizations. the deputy director willis went more detail how this process works. -- the deputy director will explain in more detail how the

process works. only properly trained analysts may access the data. they can only access it with reasonable, articulable suspicion as a predicate. one that has been met documented. .he documentation is important it existed they can be reviewed by supervisors, and for the search is done audited afterwards will ensure compliance with the court orders. in the criminal context, the government could obtain these records with a grand jury subpoena, without going to court. we go to court every 90 days to seek the court authorization to collect the records. as part of the renewal process, we inform the court whether there are any compliance problems, and if there have been, the court will take a hard look and make sure we have corrected these problems. as we have explained before, the 11 judges on the court are far from rubberstamps.

instead, the review all of our pleadings thoroughly. the question is pretty do not sign off until they are satisfied that we have met all statutory and confidential requirements. the program is different. under that program, the government doesn't collect content of communications. under 702, the government applies to the court for an order allowing it to collect the communication of non-us persons reasonably believed to be overseas. this order last for one year. the statute does not allow us to collect medications -- does allow us to collect medications if the person on the other end of this call is a u.s. person. only if that is the result of a non-us person outside the united initiatingng been the call. the statute explicitly prohibits us from what is known as reverse targeting. we cannot use section 207 and

directly to obtain the communications of u.s. persons anywhere, or any persons located in the united states, by targeting a non-us person overseas. moreover, all u.s. person information collected is subject to what we call minimization rules. these rules are designed to restrict the dissemination, use, and retention of information about u.s. persons collected. these roles are reviewed and approved by the court every year to ensure that we are handling u.s. information in a manner consistent with the statute and the fourth amended. involvegrams significant oversight by all three branches of government. government -- it oversees the government compliance with the rules, and the for the minute. within the executive branch,

multiple parts of the overnment, nasa, -- and i provided in fermentation and compliance to the fives accords --congress conducts oversight. did with 215 authority in 2011. we take seriously our sponsor abilities of the american people to implement these programs and a manner that complies with all laws, and the constitution, and strikes the right balance between protecting our safety, and their privacy. i know others on the panel have free statement to make. to answer thedy questions you have very >> thank you. -- thank you.

>> thank you. we appreciate you having this hearing. we think it is important to create the impression is that have been about these activities , which are entirely lawful and appropriate for protecting the nation. in my opening statement, i would like to make three related points about the foreign intelligence surveillance court. activitiess that the that this court regulates, the acquisition of foreign intelligence for national security purposes, was shortly outside of all judicial superstition -- supervision. fisa was passed in 1978. at the time, it was clear that the congress did not intend that

it would cover electronic surveillance directed at non-us persons outside of the united states for foreign intelligence purposes. as we noted in the opening statement, because of technological change in the way international communications are carried, over time, more and more surveillance, foreign intelligence surveillance directed at non-us persons outside united states, more and more that began to fall within the technical definitions that required court approval, even though the it was not what congress had intended. in the amendments act, a worse set up the procedures of section 702, which today bd attorney -- which the deputy attorney general provided. properly viewed, 702 is not a derogation of the authorities of the fisa court.

the extent to which this nation involves the court in foreign intelligence surveillance goes well beyond what is required by the fourth amendment, and beyond what other countries require of their intelligence services. the second point i want to make is to forcefully rebut the notion that some of the advances , the fisa court is a rubber stamp read that is not reflect any independence or lack of care in the part of the core. quite the contrary pretty judges of the court and they -- and their staff review egypt location carefully, ask questions, and can request changes or limitations. in a not sign unless the judge is satisfied that the application complies with the statute and fourth amendment. these are some of the best and most experienced federal judges in the country.

they take seriously their obligation to protect national security, and to protect the individual rights. we agree with the ranking member that we should strive for the maximum possible transparency about the activities of the thet, consistent with activities. declassify toto the extent possible. i want to quote here from judge who said thuzz in most case it is facts and lyle analysis are so intertwined that excising the classified information would result in a remnant void of

useful meaning. that is an excellent summary of the challenge we face in trying to declassify these opinions. we do provide copies of all significant opinions to the judiciary and intelligence committees of both houses. i can tell new light of the recent disclosures we are redoubling our efforts to provide insight to the rulings .f the fisa court with that i'm glad to answer any questions you have. >> thank you. >> good morning sir, mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join with my colleagues today from the executive branch to discuss the issues you've identified in your opening remarks. i'm privileged to represent the work of thousands of personnel who employee the authorities provided by the combined efforts of the congress, federal courts and the executive branch.

for it's part nisa is focused on foreign intelligence but we've worked long and hard to ensure that we discover and connect the dots, exercising only those authorities expolicely granted to us. in my opening remarks i would like to review the two programs leaked to the media a lail more than a month ago, their purpose and controls. >> the program authorizing the collection of telephone data and the surveillance act amendment. let me say they are distinguished but tools with distinct purposes. negotiate was intended to stand alone delivering results that tells a story about a particular threat to our nation or allies. it is usually the product of many leads.

some of which focus and sharpen the collection of data, some make sense of that data and some which is intended to yield the conclusion that is enable timely and precise employment of law enforcement and diplomacy. the first program under the patriot act authorizes the collection of telephone metta data only. it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls. it is is to detrect communication of terrorists who are operating outside the united states communicating with those in the united states. this is focused on the seam between forrest terrorist organizations and the homeland. however useful the data might be for other purposes it's use for any other purpose is prohibited. the data acquired may be quer

rid only when there is a reasonable suspicion, one that you can write down that a telephone is associated with a specific terrorist organization. uring 2012 we only initiated searches in this set using 300 identifiers. it included phone numbers, not the content, identity or location of the called or calling party. under rules approved but the court only 22 people are approved to approve the searches in this data base. all querries are audited. only 7 positions, a tote of 11 people are authorized to release the results. reports are filed with the court every 30 days that specify the number of select tors that have been approved and the reports that contain numbers to be in the u.s. the department of justice conducts on site review of the

program every 90 days. the department of justice reports to the court on renewal orders every 90 days on the types of records south, received or denied. 702 of fisa authorizes the collection of communications for the purposes of foreign intelligence with compelled assistance of service providers, sometimes telecommunications providers. under this authority they can collect communications only when the person who was the target of our collection is a foreigner who is outside the united states. as you've heard we cannot use this authority to target any u.s. citizen or u.s. person, any person known to be in the united states. a person outside the united states if our purpose in targetting that person is to acquire information from a person inside the united states. this has been key to our

counter terrorism efforts. a bit more about over sight. the oversight on those programs operate internal and external including department of justice. there are regular on sight inspections and audits. there are reports prided to can court. the men and women are not only committed to compliance with the law but they are actively trained and must be held accountable to standards for that performance. this is also true of contractors. the actions of one contractor should not tarnish all contractors. in concluding i would note our primary responsibility not alone but across the federal government is to defend the nation. these programs are a core part of those efforts.

we use thesm to protect the lives of americans and partners worldwide. i think our nation is amongst the best in protecting privacy and civil liberties. we look forward to the discussions today but i appreciate this is at an unclassified level. i appreciate the committee chairman and committee have allowed for the possibility we may have classified discussions in an appropriate setting because the leaks have constituted an irresponsible and real damage to the capabilities that we will describe today. whatever choices are made by this nation on the matter before us, in consultation and collaboration across the three branches of government i assure you nisa will implement those choices. to do otherwise would be to take the oath to support and

defend the united states. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> good morning chairman, ranking member and members of the committee and thank you for an opportunity to be here today. as you know nisa and f.b.i. enjoy a relationship. the authorized tools available under the business records 215 702 compliment many of the tools we apply to national security cases. together with human sources, physical surveillance 215 and 702 fwive us an understanding of our risk and let us proactively address national security threats. i'd like to give you an example where these tools have played a role in counter terrorist

investigations. one i want to note is one that is familiar to this committee. in early september 2009 nsa intercepted a communication between an al qaeda courier and an unknown u.s. based person. this u.s. based person was inquiring about efforts to procure and use explosive materials and there was some urgency in his communication. nsa advised the f.b.i. to the communication as it represented a threat to the homeland. based on the nature of the threat information the f.b.i. initiated a full investigation and submitted a letter to aidentify the subscriber. it came back to an individual located in denver colorado. additionally n.s.a. ran a phone number identifiable with that individual against the information captured under 215.

n.s.a. qur rid the phone number and identified other associates. one of those numbers came back to an islamic extremist located in queens new york. the f.b.i. was already aware of the individual but information arrived from 215 assisted in identifying his network and provided corroborating information. just a few weeks after the initial tip by n.s.a. the two individuals were arrested along with another co-con sper or the. they were charged with terrorist acts and a plot to blow up the new york city subway system. this was the most serious threat to the homeland since 9/11. the importance was it was initiated on information provided by n.s.a. which she aquirde under 702. without this tip we can only

speculate as to what may have happened. this is a fast pace investigation and one in which time was of the essence. the combined tools of 702 and 215 enabled us to not only begin the investigation but to better understand the possible network involved in a plot against the homeland. i'd like to represent one case to you specific to the business record 215 authority. in 2003 the f.b.i. initiated a case on an individual identified based on an anonymous tip that he was somehow connected to terrorism. in 2004 the case was closed without sufficient information to move forward on the investigation. however, three years later in october 2007 n.s.a. provided a phone number to the f.b.i. with an area code which came back to n area consistent san diego.

n.s.a. found this phone number was in contact with an al qaeda person. once provided to the f.b.i. we initiated an investigation and submitted a letter to the carrier of the phone number and it was the subject of the previous closed case. it led to the identification of others and to date he and others have been convicted of material support for terrorism. the remember vance of this case to 215 is that if that information had not been tipped to the f.b.i. it is unknown if we would have ever looked at that suspect again. there are many instances of these authorities and application to counter terrorism investigations. thank you and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> i'll begin the questioning. with regard to the point raised by the ranking member with regard to declassification, i

just want to say that with regard to the section 702 surveillance of non-citizens of the united states, outside the united states, i think there would be few americans that would be surprised that our government engages in intelligence gathering with regard to those individuals and they would know it by looking at the statutes and amendments to the statutes that have been passed over the years that this type of activity is clearly authorized in the law. with regard to 215 there is some controversy about whether this program is authorized under the law and you'll hear more about that shortly and i'll have a question myself. but my first question is why would it not have made sense given the magnitude of this program, i am surprised it has remained secret until recently for the several years that it has. why not simply have told the american people that we're

engaging in this type of activity in terms of gather the information? it doesn't give away any nrble security secrets in terms of the particular information gathered that might lead to successes like the one just described by ms. douglas but might have engendered understanding by the public how the program works and public support for it? >> the problem is that i think that a judgment was made that to disclose the existence of this program would in fact have provided information who are seeking to avoid our surveillance. that it would tell them we are looking for the communications they are having with americans and we are using that as a basis of tracking them and identifying their confederates within the united states. so the judgment was made a

number of years ago when this program was started that it should be kept classified. it was not with held from the oversight committees in congress and briefings on it were offered to all members of congress before it was reauthorized. but the decision was made that this is sensitive sort and method we don't want to disclose. >> do you think a program of this magnitude gathering information involving a large number of people involved with telephone companies and so on uld be indefinitely kept secret from the american people. >> well, we tried. >> i understand. let me ask a followup question to and that would be how exactly does section 215's wording authorize the government to operate a program for the collection of metta data? can you walk the committee through the interpretation of the statute that lends itself to arguing that you can do this

data collection? >> certainly. i think you have to start with the fact that when you look at 215 and and the orders that the court issues under 215, there are two of them. you have to look at how they interact and operate together. i think that's very important in understanding how this is relevant to an investigation concerning these terrorists organizations. you can't just wander through all of these records. there are very strict limitations on how you can access or how you can use these under what is called the primary order. have you to have reasonable reason that one is involved with a terrorist organization. only after you have documented

that suspicion can you query this data base to find out what other phone numbers that specific terrorist related phone number has been in contact with. >> let me follow up on that because how is the collection of all of a telephone company's metta data relevant to an investigation? >> it is only relevant to the extent that you need all of that information in order to do the query of the reasonably arctic cue lated suspicion. fisk make that relevant to an investigation? >> one is the length of time these records are kept by the phone companies varries and they may not keep them as long as we keep them. the court allows us to keep

them for a five year period. the phone companies don't do that. some can be as short as 15 or 18 months. >> what happens if you incidently collect information from a u.s. person? can you explain how the minute myization procedures apply to that and what do you mean by minutization? > there are court aproffed rules that say if in targeting a foreign person who you believe to be a in a foreign location to derive foreign intelligence you discover you have communication that involves a u.s. person, they might be a person who received the communication from a person of interest or stheant communication or referenced in that communication, we have an obligation to examine whether or not that communication is pert nt to foreign intelligence? if it is, we must protect the

identity of that u.s. person unless knowledge of that identity is important pursuant to the foreign intelligence person. we would suppress the identity in any report we would make that focused on the target of interest and we would take action if that was not a foreign intelligence relevance to destroy that communication in place. >> how long do you retain information collected under 702 and you may have answered but is the incidentally collected information retained as well? >> yes unless it is relevant to a foreign intelligence purpose or evidence of a crime you would destroy that on site at the. >> and other information, how long is that pertained? >> otherwise retain that for about five years. pically in our holding under

brfisa the information is manned toirl destroyed at five years for the rest of our collection five years is the reference frame. we found that over time at about the five year point it loses its relevance in terms of a temporal nature. >> my time has expired. the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you champlee. there is a cub of questions here that haven't -- couple of questions here that haven't come up and i'd like to direct them to attorney douglas. only relevant conversations can be secured under section 5 of the patriot act, then find now h would we

that we are collecting the names of everybody in the united states of america who made any calls for the last six years or more? >> we are not collecting names. it only collects numbers and the time and duration of the phone call. >> how do you consider that to be relevant to anything if only is just collecting the names -- i mean, look, if this is an innocent past time we do to keep busy for for some other reason, why on earth would we be collecting just the numbers of everybody in the united states of america for at least six years?

>> i can speak to the application against investigations and in this case for 215 it would be specific to counter terrorism investigations. that information enables us to search against connections to other -- if there is a communication between a u.s. based phone number and a phone number that is overseas related to terrorism. i know it's been explained the standard by which we have to search gents those phone numbers. >> here we are faced with the fundamental problem in this hearing. we're not questioning access. we're talking about the collection in the first instance. and the first instance when you

collect the phone numbers of everybody in the united states for over six years, there wasn't anything relevant in those conversations. now you have them and what i've been getting out of this is become s access may valuable mr. ranking member. and so that's why we do it this way. but i maintain that the fourth amendment to be free from unreasonable search and seizure means that this data collected aggregated er fashion can result in a fourth amendment violation before you do anything else. you've already violated the law as far as i am concerned.

and that is in my view the problem. and of course, to help further document the first question that the chairman of this committee asked is why didn't we just tell everybody about it is because the american people would be totally outraged as they are getting now as they become familiar with this, that every phone number that they've ever called is already a matter of record. and we skip over whether the collection was a fourth amendment violation. we just say that the access proved in one case or two, that it was very important and that's why we did it this way. a complete

failure -- we changed the patriot act to add relevancy as a standard because of this very same problem that has now been revealed to be existing. and so i feel very uncomfortable about using aggregated meta data on hundreds of millions of americans, everybody, including every member of congress and every citizen who has a phone in the united states of america. this is unsustainable. it's outrageous and must be stopped immediately.

>> with the question of relevance. it must be legally relevance and have operational relevance. >> we're handling this iscussion. i asked her -- maybe somebody else can do it but i appreciate your volunteering to help out here but it's clear to me that we have a very serious violation of the law in which the judicial committee deliberately put in the issue of ell vance and now you're going to help me out and defer to somebody else. >> i meant to provide

additional information. >> without objection the gentleman is recognized for another minute if he chooses for another member of the panel to answer the question. >> no i don't so choose. i'm satisfied with what i got from the witness that i asked the question to. >> thank you. >> at the risk of having the flag thrown at me for piling on, i want to get at the whole business of who decides what is relevant. both the chairman and the ranking member have said that the patriot act was amend in 2006 to include a relevance standard. yesterday i got a letter from the justice department which was at great length explaining this. and i'd ask yuan mouse consent that the letter be placed in

the record at this time. >> without objection it will be made part of the record. >> part of that letter said that all of the phone calls meaning the meta data had to be collected pursuant to the court order and then it would be up to the security apparatus to make any determination of which needles in that large hey stack were relevant to a foreign terrorist investigation. doesn't that mean that instead of a court making a determination of relevance, it's the security app rat us that makes a determination in which of the list in a series of phone calls get picked out according to your testimony? >> i'm happy to address that. what the court decuzz set out a

framework and a set of rules we must follow to implement its orders. >> but they don't determine which specific phone calls are relevant to the specific statute, you do that? >> we report to the court on the implementation of this. we get it reuped every up 90 days. >> you do that, the court does not. now if there was a criminal trial involved it would be the court determining a relevance standard pursuant to subpoena or for proffered evidence, wouldn't it? >> not necessarily. >> then let me continue on this. i've been the author of the patriot act and the patriot act reauthorization of 2006. mr. con yes, sir was correct in saying why the relevance standard was put in and that was an attempt to limit what the intelligence community could be able to get pursuant

to section 15. it appears to me that according to this letter and according to the testimony of the f.b.i. director that relevant was an expansion of what could happen rather than a limitation when the law was amended when relevant was not included in that statute. and doesn't that make a mockery of the legal standard because you're trying to have it both ways? >> i don't think we're trying to have it both ways. >> well, you sure are because you're saying authorize, have the court thours to get us the records of all the phone calls that are made to and from phones in the united states including people who have nothing to do with any type of a terrorist investigation. and then what you're saying is that we'll decide what to pick out of that mass of maybe a billion phone calls a day on

what we're looking at rather than saying this person is a target, why don't you get an authorization only for that person's telephone records? >> again, going to the analogy of the criminal context. we would never in a grand jury situation or a criminal investigation even go to a court for the framework or tting of rules or have sunsetting every 90 days of the authority -- >> with all due respect, the letter that i got from the department that you're the number two person in says that you get the fisa court order because there are reasonable grounds to believe the data is relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism even though most of the records in the data set are not associated with terrorist activity. so you gobble up all of those

rords and then you turn around and say we'll pick up 300 phone numbers out of the billions of records that you have every day and you store for five years there. and all the rest of this stuff is sitting in a warehouse and we found out from the i.r.s. who knows wants to have any legal or illegal access to it. you are having it both ways. let me tell you one who has fought patriot act fights usually against the people over on the other side of the aisle, section 215 expires at the end of 2015 and unless you realize you got a problem, that is not going to be renewed. there are not the votes in the house of representatives to renew section 215 and then you're going to lose the business record access of the patriot act entirely. it has to be changed and you have to change how you operate

section 215 otherwise in a year and a half or two years you're not going to have it anymore and i yield back. >> i yield back. >> the problem obviously with what we're hearing from this panel and what we've heard generally about the relevance standard is that everything in the world is relevant and if we removed that word from the statute, you wouldn't consider or the fisa court wouldn't consider that it would affect your ability to collect meta data in any way whatsoever which is to say you are disregarding the statute al together. >> when we were considering 215 they suggested we review the authority of 15 similar to a grand jury subpoena. and we specified in the statute that in order to under section 215 quote may only require the production of a tangible thing

through a grand jury subpoena. now can you give me any examples where grand jury subpoenas were used to allow the bulk and ongoing collection of telephone meta data? >> it difficult to go into specific examples of what grand jury speens call for because they are subject to the sec resi rules. >> are there any instances in the history of the united states that you know of where a grand jury subpoena said get all information other than the content of a telephone call -- of all telephone calls in the united states or anything like that? >> the admonition in the statute is that it is the types of records that are collected by grand jury subpoena, not that it is an identical process to the grand jury process because this is quite different from a grand jury process. > the type of data is meta

data unlimited to specific individual. >> the type of data is meta data -- >> unlimited to specific individuals because it's the record to everybody. it's the record to every phone call in the united states. can you give me any example where a grand jury subpoena has been used for anything remotely like that. >> these are instances where we've gone to the court under the 215 requirements -- >> you're not answering my question. can you give me any example in the history of the united states where a grand jury subpoena was used for anything remotely resembling all meta data, not to specific phones or specific individuals. >> grand jury speens have a different function than a 215 under the patriot act. >> i understand that. you're not answering my questions. we know they have a different

function. . but the statute is says it can only acquire a specific thing if it can be obtained through a grand jury subpoena. >> can you obtain meta data without specific names or tell phones? >> i think it would depend on -- >> is there any instance? history? >> yes, therer where a court could authorize it. >> can you give me an example in history? >> i'm not aware. >> i believe this is totally unprecedented and is way beyond the statute and you can't give me any instance because it doesn't exist. . so within a week or two could you supply that committee within that information? >> depending on the criminal rules of procedure which prohibit disclosing grand jury information we'll take that question back.

>> can you give us an example where ongoing bulk collection has been allowed by virtue of grand jury subpoena without showing tangible things and specific existing investigation? >> well, in this instance we are showing it as a relationship to a specific investigation and a specific phone number. we have to show reasonable -- >> only use of that information, not for collection of it. the statute is talking about collection and you're confusing this by talking about use. >> but the collection is only there and only valuable if it is used and the use is severely restricted. >> the abuse of the statute, the abuse of civil liberties, the abuse of privacy is not only misused but miscollection. if you're collecting information about my telephone when you shonet be doing that, that is an abuse even if you file that and never use it. >> we go to the court and

describe to them exactly how the program will work, what the limitations are -- >> that doesn't help me. the fact that -- the fact that unaccount to believe public knowledge of what it's doing, unaccountable to the supreme court may join you in misusing or abusing the statute is of no comfort whatsoever. so to tell me that you go to the fisa court is irrelevant if the fisa court is doing the same abuse of the statute. so can you give me some examples where ongoing bulk collection, i'm not asking about use, has been allowed by virtue of grand jury subpoena without showing the connection between those tangible things and a specific investigation?

>> time of the gentleman has expired. >> we'll take that as a question for the record and depending on the rules of criminal procedure we'll see what we can get back to you. >> you could give it to us on a classified basis so we can say our conclusions about that information. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. good to have you with us today. does the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure apply to business records that could be obpained under 215 of the patriot act? >> they do not apply to the meta data records. there is a case that ruled these kinds of cases there is no reasonable expectation of privacy so there is no fourth amendment protection. >> does a person have a reasonable expectation of

privacy in third party business records? >> people generally do not when they are in third party hands because other people already have them so the expectation of privacy has been severely undermind. >> is it true that a 215 order provides greater privacy protection than does a grand jury or administrative procedure or administrative subpoena which can be used to obtain the same types of business records in a criminal investigation without prior court approval? >> yes, it does. there are a number of provisions in 215 that provide much greater protection than a grand jury process would. first you have to go to a court. the court has to specifically review the program and the description of the relevance of these records, how they will be accessed, how they will be overseen, how there will be auditing and reporting on it, how there will be compliance of

all of the rules of the court. none of that takes place in the grand jury context. >> if the fourth amendment applies to foreign coun countries do the bill of right as ply such as the second amendment? >> not necessarily. the fourth amendment applies to u.s. persons outside of the united states but does not apply to non-u.s. persons outside of the united states. >> for the benefit of the uninformed and sometimes i feel i'm in that category, describe for the committee the mikeup of the fisa court, who sits on it, where it resides and how it operates. >> it is made up of article three judge who is have been nominated by a president. they cover any number of different administrations. they have been confirmed by the united states senate for a life appointment. they have their regular duties

as district court judges. they are appointed by the chief justice of the united states to everybody is a term on the fisa court. there are 11 of them at any given time. each of them everybody ises for a week at a time. they do not take care of their other court duties back in their home districts. they come and everybody is on the fisa court for that week. there is a staff there as well that helps them and goes through it and is their clerks and legal research assistants in this matter and these last for a term of 7 years that each judge can is it on the court. >> i believe you are one of the members of the panel may have indicated this that to some extent there is confusion as to the number of denials. there has been level of the courlt indicating very few denials but i think one of you

addressed that earlier? you want to add to that? >> the level of denials is similar to the level of denials which is small for a title three, wiretap applications that are made to judges in regular courts. these are also done in chambers and with one party. and the reason that the number is so low, first of all is under the fisa, you have to have either the attorney general or myself or the assistant attorney general for the national security division sign off on the application. very high ranking officials in the department. so those applications are done very carefully in the first place. number two, the court, if they're not satisfied with an application that comes in will tell us. they'll say you need more information or restrictions or requirements. and we respond to that. and unless we satisfy them on

all their requirements they will not sign them. but more often than not we can find the additional information they need. there is something of a process but it's not unlike what goes on with a normal court every day in the title three or wiretap process. >> i'd like to make one final statement and this may not be the day for it but mr. chairman, i'd like to know the cost that has been expended in implementing this matter. if you will concur with that i will pursue that at a later date. >> i do concur with that. that is an important piece of information to have but that is classified and would entail the hearing in a classified setting where we can get answers to questions like that. >> i yield back mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you.

did i understand you to say that you do not have an expectation of privacy on your phone records? >> the supreme court ruled in smith versus maryland that you do not have a sufficient expectation of privacy in the phone records as we've talked about it. >> that's fine. you indicated you get the numbers, not the names. if the numbers are relevant under whatever standard you're using, why are not the names qually relevant? >> well the names are not collected in the meta data. >> if you can get the numbers, why can't you get the names? >> we can through other legal process. that's what the f.b.i. will do. >> why don't you get it all at once? where is the statutory limitation? >> i think this indicates the fact that this program is carefully set up in such a

manner to minimize the invasion of privacy. >> where is the statutory limitation? >> the program is found reasonable is the fact that the collection is very limited. the access is very limited and it's on that -- >> you have made -- that's because have you made up the program. i asked you a specific question. if this is available where is the statutory limitation to what you can get? there is no statutory limitation. you are making it up as you go along. >> we are not making it up. we are seeking the approval of the court and this collection has been repeatedly approved by the fisa court in compliance with the statute. >> once you get the information, we know once you get d.n.a. from somebody you can use it -- you can run it through no probable cause through the data base.

once you get this meta data where is the limitation on what you can use it for? >> it's in the court order. >> where is the statutory limitation? >> the statutory limitation says we can acquire the information as ordered by the court. the court sets limits on what we can do with it and we adhere to those limits. >> is there a limit in criminal investigations or exception for criminal investigations without probable cause? >> with respect to information obtained under section -- >> once you've got the meta data can you run a criminal investigation without probable cause? >> it can only be used in pursuit of a terrorist investigation and the only thing that is done with that is telephone numbers are generated out of it for further investigation. it cannot be used for a criminal investigation unrelated to terrorism. >> wait a minute, you are

talking about minimumization? >> the court's order provide we can only use this data for purposes of a terrorist investigation. >> how does the court -- why is the court required to place that limitation on it? >> because the court looks at the application we are submitting and determines that with all of the restrictions imposed here this is a reasonable method of collecting this information and complies with the statute and fourth amendment. >> is there an exception under minimumization for criminal investigations? minimumization procedures 2-c says that notwithstanding subparagraphs e and b information that is evidence of a crime which has en or is about to be

committed and is retained for law enforcement matters are exempt. >> it is only to be used for the term specified by the court and that is what we talked about for a terrorism investigation. >> so the minimumization exception for criminal investigations doesn't apply? if you trip over some crimes -- >> we're not allowed to use this data base for a criminal investigation unrelated to terrorism. >> that's not what the code section says but if that's what you want maybe we need to change it. does excuse nare rule apply. if you trip over rules and including the principle of the poison tree, does that apply? do those exclusions apply you

may trip over you've gotten through this? >> we don't have the ability to trip over it. all this data is is a series of telephone numbers and other identifiers. the only thing we can use this data for is to submit to the pool of data a telephone number or other identifier we have reason to believe based on facts is associated with terrorism. we can then say what numbers has that been in contact with. any further investigation has to be done under some other authority. >> mr. chairman, a poll jies but the minimumization exception for criminal investigation and when i asked the attorney general gonzalez about what you could use this information for, he specifically indicated criminal g-2c under minimumization requirements

procedures. he specifically said you could run a criminal investigation without the necessity implying without the necessity of probable cause that you usually need to do to get information. thank you mr. chairman. let me start by saying i'm satisfied at least from what limited knowledge i have that the motivation behind this was legitimate and necessary for our national security to start establishment he of a court. and from your testimony you've apparently not abused individual rights and you have

been an effective tool for terrorism. but my concern is this could evolve into something that is quite different. the star chamber in england started out as a very good and very popular with the people. it allowed people to get justice that otherwise would not. but it evolved over time into a powerful weapon for political retribution by the king. and my question is, in fact i was reading supreme court, it said it symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. and they talk about actually the right against self-incrimination was a direct result of what happened in england when this court evolved

into something quite different from what it was intended to do. so my first question to all of this from do we keep evolving into a weapon, an unchecked weapon by the government to violate people's constitutional rights and i'm more concerned about american's rights, not terrorist rights. >> i think the way this is designed to make sure all three branches of involved, that this isn't just the king or one branch doing it. this is something that is done with permission of the court and supervision of the court, with rules laid down by the court to make sure it come ports with the constitution and the privacy rights of u.s. citizens. it is done through statutes passed by this body where we report back to this body and tell you what we've done with it and how it works and let you

know whoo problems we've had and how we've fixed them and done with a lot of oversight with the executive branch and a number of different executive branch agencies that audit and see how it's done and make sure it's done right. i think that's how. >> if i could emphasize one point on that. this committee has an important role in ensuring these authorities are not abused. we are required to report extensively on all activities to the intelligence and judiciary committees of both houses. we are required to provide caller:s of all significant opinions. we are required to provide reports about how these activities are carried out and we welcome your participation in that oversight to ensure we don't cross the bounds that the people want us to adhere to. >> anyone else? >> when i learned about this, i was not aware of it at all and

i think the original response was 14 members of congress knew something about this. were those reports eroneyouse? >> i can't speak to what members actually knew. i can tell you what we did to inform members. at the time when this legislation was first up for renewal in 2009, 2010, we provided a classified letter to the intelligence committees that described this program in great detail. >> how about the judiciary committee? >> the letter was provided to the intelligence commit e tee and the intelligence committee sent a letter saying it was available. we had a briefing to this committee. and the letters were referenced in a statement on the floor saying these letters were

available and i urge you to come and read them. we were not trying to hide this program. >> do you have any objection to the court opinions and period i can reports being made available to all members of ongress? >> i think the answer is probably no but i think we'd have to think about the itch indications of that. >> that is probably my response. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. > thank you. >> the gentle woman from california is recognized. >> thanks to mr. chairman and our witness. i was thinking back to september 11, one one of the worst days i've spent in the congress and remembering that that weekend after the attack that members of the white house, the intelligence community, members of this

committee and our staff sat right at that table, we sat around that table and worked together to craft the patriot act. and it's worth remembering that at original act was passed unanimously by the house judiciary committee and had the balance we thought was important to protect the country but looking forward to protect the rights of americans under the constitution. and i share the concern expressed by some that things have gone off in a different direction from that day. now i as my colleague has indicated from alabama , i don't question your motivation which is to keep america safe, i know that that is what you are trying to do and certainly we all want that, but the concern is that the statute

that we crafted so carefully may not be being add heered to as envisioned by us and as reported to us. i want to say this: yes, we have a system where there are checks and balances. but part of that is that the legislative branch needs to have understanding of what the other branches are doing and we can't do that without information. it's been discussed we get these ample reports. and i just recently reviewed e annual report on section 215. is it true that the or isn't it true that the annual 215 report to the committee is less than a single page and not more than eight sentences? >> i think that the 215 annual reports are quite a bit less than the 702 annual reports.

>> i just asked a question. is that about the size of your recollection? >> i'd have to go back to answer directly. >> is it true that the report of the number of applications really gives the committee information as to the amount of records impacted? >> the number of applications, is there a direct correlation between the number of entiss impacted or the number of record? >> well the number of entities impacted will depend on how many phone numbers have been called. >> you report the number of applications but it would have no relationship to the number of records acquired? >> no, not necessarily. >> thank you very much. ooking at this letter that was sent to my colleague and i thank him for senting it out. and by the way he and i have sent a letter asking that u.s.

companies be authorized to publish information regarding the government request for user i think it is unfair that these to doies have no capacity what has been asked of them. i would ask that you respond to that letter probably. back, it seems to me that if you take a look at case two of the letter. the second paragraph indicates fewer thana reported 300 unique identifiers. only a very few portion of the records are reviewed and are actually relevant. indicates that

getting all the data is not relevant to a specific and cory. if you go to the next page, this that youuestion referred to in your testimony. the consistency with the constitution. expectation -- reasonable expectation of privacy with information held by third parties. that'sour position that trumpsutional provision and allows you to capture every images at anand atm machine. that is in plain sight.

does that trump the constitutional ability of congress? congress long as what does is consistent. , i amto the fisa court sure that the judges take their obligations seriously. as you do. in justice system is set up an adversary away. you do not have a counterparty making a case to the courts. the expectation that our system , as it does in other environments, i think that is misplaced. i look forward to our classified briefing. i think that, very clearly, this program has gone off the tracks, legally.

the chair thanks the gentleman. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. i do not want to scream or yell at you. your people across the country would like to do that. the reason this room is so packed today is not just about this program. people feel that their country is shifting. rightly or wrongly, they feel that this is administration has adopted a philosophy that's the end justifies the means. more than any administration in history. this is administration that uses taxpayer resources to advocate their political agenda. they can decide which laws they want to obey and which they want to ignore. which ones they want to rewrite.

more than any nation in history, used government agents to oppress and harass citizens. now, you see this administration using unprecedented amounts of data collection. data for theg affirmation goal. they do not know how many more boards that they will pull off. that they might say. there are other data programs that they do not know about. we do not realize enough. we hear the administration saying this -- this is not illegal. we need to change law. just because of the is not illegal does not mean that it is

not wrong. you cannotsomething, come in here and explain what this program does. you cannot tell us how many people are involved with it. you cannot tell us with a court is saying. this my question for you, there normalcy -- in large amount of people administering this program. thatou tell us something has not been disclosed to the congress or the american people question mark -- people? it is hard to believe that there has not been some abuses. what is your process for collecting that information and making sure that abuses do not take place?

has anyone ever been disciplined for using that information? information, that i would love for you to offer it to us. >> the questions, i think it is important to note that this program has gone on across a number of administrations. it is not unique to this administrations. it has happened in prior administrations. not in a roadway -- rogue manner. it has been scrutinized. we know of no one who has ever in any kind ofor wrongful way, abused this. there may have been technical problems.

no one has abused this in a way that would be worthy of or cause disciplined. that is done is documented and reviewed. nobodynt to make sure has done the things that you are concerned about happening. these are valid concerns. this has to do with both the court and congress to make sure that these things do not happen. we have not, to my knowledge, discipline anybody for that. this does nothat happen. we look for it. we look for it hard. concur with mr. cole's remarks. there have been no abuses of 215. 2012, a reportf

said that they had detected no willful abuse of the program. they will be identified in the same way that mr. cole talked about. not just at nsa, but between nsa and the department of justice. there were a number of opportunities to look at the misappropriation of the resources to this program. abuse thise who program be disciplined? absolutely. snowden abused. it pretty badly. i would love to have your responses, for the record. i do not want to abuse other people's time. i yield back.

you respond to the gentleman from virginia's comment on mr. snowden? trust,ay have abused his in disclosing classified details of the program. due respect, that is what the american people are worried about. people are getting data and using it to disclose. for the life of me, i do not see how you parse this issue. that is what is infuriating the american people. they do not understand that if you collect this data, it can be used to harm them. that is what's concerning them. a morewe can get elaborate or sponsor the record record.nse for the

representf us who what the appreciate intelligence community does. that the chairman and ranking members have held this hearing, the issue is that we have to do something. we have to do more to ensure the trust of the american people. one point that a ranking member that if we cannot prove the necessity of the metadata collection, why are we doing it? premise and the respect for the civil liberties of the american people. thate the first question deals with the idea that

witnesses have testified that phone record data was recorded last year. how do you define necessity? rephraseanted me to this. do you define queries and justified that gathering? procedures, reasonable articulations standard. that is what we described earlier. approves --so >> is approved based on permission of the fisa court? >> yes ma'am. >> the query is made without a

warrant? the preliminary oversight, if you will. >> that is correct. gives us the power to do first analysis and, from those numbers, go out. that second connection of interest came across the federal bureau of investigation to uncover information for terrorist activity. >> once you do the query, what is the next step? >> there could be a second or a third query. byt information is reviewed an analyst and disseminated to federal bureau of investigation.

if they see something that is of interest to them. in many cases, nothing of interest comes up. the fbi is the investigatory arm. what is the oversight role, more ?pecifically i have introduced bipartisan legislation to deal with the issue of the fisa court. andifically, the release reporting of nonclassified opinions. that would help the trust of the american people. will the justice department consider that? .> thank you certainly, we will consider that.

involvement is to make sure that the provisions of the statue meet the standards that have been set out. we are in the process of the application and making sure that are passed by congress. we engage the court. what kind of oversight will be done? what kind of limitations will be done? we end up with a court-authorize system. that is where we go and have nsa make that determination. done onterminations are a random basis to make sure that they are in compliance with what the court has ordered. if they are not in compliance, we will report that to the courts.

compliance those issues to make sure that they do compliant. -- comply. data have had a release of individual who is traveling around the world. impact. a dastardly can you speak to the impact. -- can you rests express the reason for contractors? study.king for a impactuld say, the associated with mr. snowden's disclosures could be very harmful.

it is too early to tell. he could have given them a avoidok on how to intelligence organizations. we are concerned about that. on contractors, is important to differentiate between two different types of contractors. when lockheed martin builds a satellite for us, does the contract. i do not know the number offhand, but i will assume it is accurate. another category of contractors called for contractors. been working hard to oreuce the number of c contractors. as a result of what has happened recently, we are looking to

reduce the usage of contractors. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to get that done. >> the time of the gentlewoman has expired. >> i appreciate this hearing. i remember, in your opening statement, you may mention that there was not a restriction on foreign intelligence surveillance prior to 1978. >> there was no judicial involvement. of doestion that i know foreign surveillance. i do not know of other nations that have judicial interference with surveillance. are you aware of any? other nations do not have their courts involved in intelligence activity.

>> we are unique in that. why would be concerned about the manufactured constitutional rights of foreign persons in four countries communications with other form persons in foreign countries. if there is a nexus in the , would you agree that? >> from the point of view of the constitution, it is correct that foreigners are not protected. we do not go out indiscriminately. >> i understand the decency of the american people, but don't --

operation of fisa has allowed us to collect the intelligence that we need. >> another way of asking questions about that, the phone company collects data for five years. if an agreement could be reached with the phone companies for a five-year timeframe, wouldn't that be a firewall that is more reliable than having a facility to store all that data? >> that is a reasonable question. dataompanies collect that for their own business purposes. would have to be a basis in which you could compel them. >> a contractual agreement?

protection. statute of to those who do that. providers,multiple , you would run pillar to post -- >> take a careful look at that and get back to me. you give me a good answer so far. >> yes, sir, i will. happy to provide those -- >> let's check in with you mr. english. way, let'sout this go to the list. to, notve the ability

this early listen in, tracked every phone call in the united states? do we have the ability to attract any e-mail and the united states? to have the ability to track website activity in the united states? the ability to enter into active chat rooms and real- time monitor? do we have the ability to track any electronic credit or debit transactions? do we have the ability to locate cell phones that are active? do we have the ability to track gps locators on vehicles or other devices? and, i know my clock is running , i want to put a little more and. campaign used data from voter suppression.

the irs is targeting the president's political enemies. all these things are happening. if if the answer is generally , i would charge that it is impossible to drive from bangor made to los angeles without leaving a data trail and all of these things can be justified by statute and case law. >> if the predicate is, in the u.s.. , the answer would be no. is it technically possible to do those things, i would say no. the national security agency lacks the authority and collection to do the things that you are talking about.

>> i thank you and i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. point -- io make a would like to make a point. used thenistration has ends justifying the means in many areas. i believe you said that this administration is not different from the bush and administration. >> yes. irs has looked at tea party and liberal groups that they felt was more than 50% political. it is wrong to question the president on those issues once the facts have come out that it was not partisan.

i take umbrage, on behalf of the administration. this, mr. you snowden, what security status did he have. he could see anything that you wanted to? was he limited in access? secret clearance. that is standard in the intelligence community. administratorm privilege. you go through information systems. he can move data around. >> generally, how many people are at the same level he was? general, tens of thousands.

>> tens of thousands of people could have done what edward snowden did? no, sir, i would say probably hundreds. nsa any organization, the has a side of its architecture that makes information available. ofre is a free exchange information. the production size is rigorously controlled. mr. snowden took ruthless advantage of the former. he did not have access to the latter, except in limited circumstances in the training. letter, about a the background of mr. stone. that a highned

school dropout -- not that there can't be great high school , whouts -- that's this guy wouldn't jump through hoops, was put into that kind of security level. i think that is questionable. is any of the work of the associate director contracted out? is that done by government employees? is an inherently governmental function. determination of the facts and circumstances are such that some of that would be contracted out. we can provide the details -- >> doesn't concern you at all -- should it be contracted out? >> it should be retained inside the government. induction of information,

terms of conducting interviews and investigations, it can be conjured out to want to have higher trust. >> how did mr. snowden take this data with him? >> i do not know, precisely, how he did this. in due course, we will know. >> some type of a disk? speculating. thehould be changes in procedures to make sure that people do not leave secured acilities? >> there are controls in the system. >> the judges come from different administrations. to know surprise you that 10 of the 11 judges are all

from republican presidents. meit wouldn't surprise either way. >> the chief justice is a republican appointee. he picked 10 of the 11 justices. go back over history. is the same number of years. he chose republicans. do you think there should be some change to make sure that there is an ideological balance? >> if you answer the question. we tried to take partisan politics out of the process. panel.ink the >> i thank the gentleman from the volunteer state. >> thank you for being here. the chairman just mentioned the

judge. i spent 22 years at the criminal courthouse in houston. , at all.like criminals i have looked at the constitution and i have read it. the fourth amendment. the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. no warrant shall issue, except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be seized and the person or place to be seized. warrants areaking, brought to judges by law enforcement and the judge signs it or does sign the wards issuing the paper to go out and

sees that person in that specific place. . have read that numerous times i do not see in here, anywhere, an exception for national security. do any of you see a national security exemption to the fourth amendment? there is not a national security exemption, but, several courts have held that there is a -- the word requirements of the fourth amendment does not extend to foreign intelligence. >> i understand your answer. when i talk about foreign we are note -- talking about foreign intelligence. set that aside. talk about searches and

seizures and the united states of american citizens. is there a national security exception to the fourth to americanat comes citizens in the united states? do any of you see that in the fourth amendment? >> again, there's not a national security exception. to have foreign intelligence collection against americans. i offered you a situation where an american was a spy for russia. we could be collecting valid foreign intelligence. there is word requirements for electronic surveillance. due respect, there are cases that say there are an

exception. >> ok. we can argue until the sun goes down. the fourth amendment does not have a national security exception. that has been expanded because of fisa and court rulings. that is not the fourth amendment. i think that we should remember that the fourth amendment was written because of what was going on with king george the third and he was going into people's homes in the united states, the colonies in those things withoutng a warrant. that is the basis of it. that is why we do not want to get to the points in this country, in the name of national therity, that we hurt fourth amendment. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i won't, sorry.

the former soviet union, when it was communist, i was he there. the actions of the citizens were constantly under surveillance. anything that was done, the government would say that they are doing it for national security reasons. because of those bad old americans. we go it's your home. we bruise the concept of rights in the name of national security. that's a -- that concerns me. i hope we rein in the constant that it is ok to violate the spirit of the constitution in the name of national security. had their rights violated -- i don't like snowden at all, but we wouldn't know what happened if he hadn't told is there any recourse?

>> you may answer the judge's question. >> it depends. if it comes from a third-party, it is not their record. the phone company could challenge the subpoena. toy would be in a position challenge that abuse. >> i thank the chairman. i have another question that i would like to submit to the record. >> i'm confident that one of your colleagues will you you time. >> the chair will now recognize the gentleman from georgia. to follow-up on the the principles that you were just talking about, are you familiar -- with the case of

smith versus maryland? it has to do a telephone records . >> that is correct. the question is, is there a fourth amendment privacy .nterest in telephone records how did the court rule? that theret ruled was no reasonable expectation of privacy, because they belonged to the telephone company, not the individual. >> is that case of applicable to the issue of collection of metadata. ? >> yes, sir, it is. >> is the collection of metadata, domestic to domestic but,ata, not content

, domestic to domestic and foreign to domestic. that is the program that edward snowden revealed? >> that is correct. >> he also revealed the prism program. it was a program that enabled the collection of internet metadata, not content. >> that is not correct. >> explained to me -- >> i could refer to some of my prism allows the collection of content. it is only content of non-us persons who we reasonably

believe to be outside of the united states. >> so, that is the prism program. collects data, including content, from foreign communications. minimalization effort to limit foreign to domestic communications that were not relevant to national security. >> that is generally correct. generally, that is correct. >> that program, certainly, we do not want our adversaries to know what we are doing. to watch them. -- twoveilled them

veileilled them -- to su them. we need that to be secret. with respect to data collection metadataic to domestic , why is it necessary that the american people not know of that program? why does that program have to be confidential, classified, secret? >> i can give speculation. themore people know about way we go about identifying terrorist networks, the more they will avoid the kinds of ways that we used to do that. they may avoid communicating through phones.

>> if they cannot communicate through phones and the internet, what will they do? -- take a can and attach a string and attach another can? they may find other ways or mechanisms >> it will be a cat and mouse game. >> that is correct. >> the american people should know the activities that affect them. the collection of telephone , the government is collecting this information creating a database with which it can use to investigate information that is acquired from foreign sources related to national security, terrorist

acts. the american people may conclude that they want the government to collect the data. if they do not know that the government is collecting the data and they find out after it is leaked by someone who thinks out andlegal, they find that way and then they lose confidence in their government. is that the situation that we find ourselves in today? anyone. expired.s >> by the way, i am a former jurist, too. apologies,xcept my your honor. need need to balance the

for secrecy in these programs. required in the kind of society we live in. people participate in our government. it's a difficult balance to find. that is the one we're trying to find right now. >> the chair recommend -- recognizes the gentleman from idaho. balancingportant than those needs is balancing our liberties with our security. that is what we are all secured -- concerned about. we're grading a system that we are creating a system that allows the government to collect everybody's metadata. i was in a country that was a police state.

i had heard that term my entire life. i never understood what it meant. i heard about the ussr and other nations that were surveilling people who visited the country. i felt, literally, like i was being observed in every place that i went. the place was very secure and very safe. there is very few crimes. had it was because people given up their liberty in exchange for security. that is what people are concerned about. to give up our liberty in the name security. that the fisa courts were not a rubber stamp. i had a hard time following your argument. judges areat the

reading the material and it is not a rubber stamp. that seems to be a nonsensical argument. a doesn't seem to be determination of whether or not somebody is rubberstamping. i was a criminal defense attorney, never a judge. it seems to me, there is always a check and balance on the government. when you go and get warrants, you have an abba can contest in court. that is not happening in the fisa courts. how do we address that? >> i have a couple of things to say. point, the idea of

a rubber stamp is that the do not think about it. my point is, that is not what happens. they read it. they push back. they do careful studies and analysis. point, if iecond , what wehilosophical have here is the oversight of intelligence activity. -- it is notgation a litigation. it is not a trial. >> i'm not so worried about section 702. you are gathering my information. my personal data is held by the united states. i'm concerned about that.

havingcerned about you the data of every single american and i think there should be some mechanism for us haveunter whatever -- i all respect for judges, i served , theyawyer for 15 years were usually right and i was usually wrong, at least i would tell them that -- i have a great respect for the legal system. i have a concern when you do not have somebody on the other side advocating for the rights of other citizens. let's go to smith versus maryland. you mentioned smith versus maryland. this is not an analogous case to what we are talking about. what, in the fisa statute or the , allows you to

collect the data of every single american? you're talking about one individual who is suspected of committing a crime. we aretelling me that collecting the metadata of every single american. that concerns me. >> there are two different issues. smith versus maryland goes to the issue of whether or not the fourth amendment applies to this kind of data. not whether or not the fourth amendment allows the collection done under 215. that is done under 215. that the court approves the collection that is being done. the court must demonstrate that that is relevant. found inance is accommodation of the two orders.

limitations. the court says you cannot go through this at anytime you want, for any purpose you want, and anytime you want. that cannot be done. you must find reasonable and articulate a bowl suspicion that the number that you want to query is related to one of of these terrorist groups. >> my time is expired. i think that determination has to occur before you collect the data, not after. that is what is wrong with what you guys are doing at this time. >> thank you. i was listening to the steps that you outlined. you are a query for the metadata. you're describing it as a way of

showing what kind of constraints that you use on this information . it sounds to me like you have determined that the phone numbers of all of the american people are relevant. database,o query the you had to establish and articulate a bowl suspicion -- rticulatable -- a suspicion. people that empowered? they are acting like court judges. why are they doing the jobs that the fisa court was set up to do? are they retrieving data from third-party databases? who are these 22 people?

>> the court has described that particular procedure. peoplere a number of with that authority. those people are following court court order procedure -- ordered procedure. the only issue that i would take some issue with how you that you have to describe that all of these records are relevant. as the combination of two different court orders that have to be read together as you look at this. it is not just one or the other. it is a whole program that is put together and presented to the with limitations and onrsight and restrictions

how it can be accessed. only then does the court make a determination. >> the may continue with the description that you gave, with regards to how you proceed along these lines. after they approve it, it appears that they have in audits and you file papers with the .ourt on this audits then, the department of justice reviews it. >> it is not exactly in this order. ed reasonablecument suspicion that takes place at a time. it is reviewed to make sure that it is done properly and the standards are being applied properly. the query is made. to the department of justice and the office of national

intelligence, the inspector general, they all look at these things to make sure that they are being applied properly and it is being done properly and there are not any missed applications of it. we have to talk about getting renewed authority every 90 days. problems that are discovered, they are reported to the intelligence and judiciary committees. there are checks and balances in audits that go on both before the query is made, as well as, after. collected -- retroactive. more of the emphasis should be on the first half of what you're talking about.

aren't those documents, with regards to the doj reviews, available to the committee question mark >> i would imagine those would be classified. i would have to go back and check. we will look at the facts that we get. my guess is that those would be classified. >> i think that there are reports that are made. briefings, and classified settings, can be arranged, as well. also, about the issue of court documents. i understand that secrecy is conductinghen intelligence investigations but, we had to make sure that the efforts are done within the legal frameworks of the

constitution. we learned that advise the court agreed to declassified documents from a 2008 case with yahoo. other requests have been filed by companies in similar situations. what is the harm of releasing this information question mark shouldn't the american people be informed as to how this information is used? question. answer the >> we all agree, that is something that should be done. frequently, the classified information is fully intertwined with the legal analysis. asis our obligation to make much of this available to the public as we can. >> thank you. >> we recognize the children from texas. .> i have so many questions

do you see any limitations under the fourth amendment on the government's power to gather information on people? yes, sir, i see many limitations in the fourth amendment, the patriot act, and the fisa act. there are many limitations and checks and balances. >> let's go over a couple of those. those.a court is one of can you go and argue that you have the right to obtain an americans or every tax reform -- tax forms? individual's tax returns, there are separate laws. >> you get records from school?

relevant -- >> >> can to get hotel records. >> if you can demonstrate to the core that is relevant -- >> >> can you get my visa and mastercard records -- >> if you can demonstrate to the court that it is relevant -- >> did you create a database of every single -- can you create a database of every single credit card transaction? is -- it is dependent on the relevance. >> could you get google searches? again, it would depends, i had to make a showing to the courts that that kind of information was relevant -- >> could you get all google

searches and then come back later? >> it would depend on the way i would be able to search them and, again, under 215, if i can show that it is related to specific terrorist organizations -- phone --t data from my you could make an argument of getting the gps data out of my phone. limitations. only if it is specific to a terrorist organization. >> how is having every phone call that i made to my wife and daughter relevant to any care investigation? >> i don't know -- >> but, you have them. do not have the

information that we need to make that query. but, mr. snowden could query them without your knowledge. that hen't believe could query those without our knowledge. reassuring.lightly the fourth amendment was designed to prohibit general warrants. how could this be perceived is anything but a general warrants? because, according to the supreme court, this is not something where citizens have a reasonable expedition of privacy. shareformation that i with any company, do i have a reasonable expectation? >> those are dependent on the facts and circumstances of the

documents that we are talking about. thehe case in front of supreme court, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. out howt to point concerned i am about this data being so easily available with a stroke of a pen. the president and congress can change the search criteria and change the definition of a terrorist. the fact that this data exists -- we've seen with the iressa done with tax returns. -- what the irs has done with tax returns. my right to freedom of association and freedom of speech. issues that are looked at by the court.

we do not know who it is who has the specific phone number that is being called. >> i yield back. >> we recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsch. i was shocked by the revelations that the nsa has been collecting data on millions of americans. many members of congress, myself included, were left in dark about the data mining programs. we are worried about the balance between national security needs and constitutional rights of all americans. the government has stockpiled data on an unprecedented scale. the fisa court to serve as a rubber stamp. they're learning everything there is to know about american citizens. the men blimey right to know

about this program. at the very least, they need to know this program is operating within our system of checks and balances. protect individual privacy rights. it is time to re-examine the patriot act. onneed greater visibility the fisa courts. hearing, the committee has begun this important work of oversight and repair. thanks to the chairman and raking member calling the hearing and thanks to the witnesses for participating. i want to ask you about the october 2011 letter sent by ron are -- ronald whyte regarding section 215. andrmation was classified even most members of congress. mr. white seemed to reply in his response that because congress, number of members

of congress, anyway, received intelligence readings in accordance with the patriot act, there is no cause for alarm that the government was using a secret law to expand surveillance activities. in patriot act was passed response to 9/11, bolstering security by expanding techniques used by government law enforcement individuals to hunt down terrorist. section 215 had a standard of relevance. you had to be concrete information linking a person to a terrorist organization before their information can be taken. the fisa court has rewritten the section to say any and all persons records may be considered relevant, allowing the nsa to collect data on all americans. the fact is, in 2012, the government made 1000 100 and 89 and approve 1700 and 88.

the government withdrew the other. the member of congress not totty to the death privies those, i had to extend that there was no secret law. ,, it seemsor math there may be secret laws, not passed by congress, not publicly interpreted by the supreme court, but secret laws foreign hud of the classified interpretation of the patriot act by the court. it was reported the fisa court has become almost a parallel supreme court, serving as the ultimate arbiter of surveillance argumentsth only the of the federal government alone to be considered. has comermer judge forward with concerns that it has become a de facto administrative industry, which

makes and approves rules for others to follow. it has become public fisa groups have done this, is it still that the government does not operate with a secret there is, as we discussed in many instances, a tension that exists between maintaining the integrity and secrecy of -- making sure people know about it. the course of the reauthorization of the patriot act, on several occasions, and unclassified rethinks. broaden the question. i am's eking about the decisions the five the court make as the supreme arbiter of

this law. stepping back, does the panel understand why the american people may find this revelations secret court rulings could expand the power of the federal government beyond what was originally authorized by the law and then an entire chapter in our laws are being written outside the three branches of government altogether? tracks again, this is an area where we are looking to see what kinds of opinions we can make public and they are things we are trying to go through. all significant opinions and pleadings that have been filed by the court have been made available to the committee, so they can see them. we are not trying to keep them regret but we are trying to keep the classified nature of these. these are the issues we are trying to grapple with and determine what we can let out so we can have is rotter discussion. >> bank the gentleman from

florida. the chair would now recognize mr. holding. >> thank you. and a different part national capacity, i sit that's lee used faisal warrants to investigate and prosecute terrorists and terrorist acts. not only were they effective, but there are high burdens and hurdles to use these lines. they are significant. outside theo step prosecution of terrorism and the investigation of terrorism and talk about the use of telephone in everyday, garden- variety criminal cases, whether they are public corruption and i will cases,

direct my question to you. it you could step through for us how the department of and agenciescutors obtained telephone records in garden-variety cases and how they were used. >> there are two different ways we do it. historical telephone records exist for prior calls. i ae can be issued prosecutor, delivered to the telephone provider, and asked for a range of data rate lacks note judicial involvement? just a grand jury involvement? prosecutor defines the scope, nature, and numbers involved. >> is the prosecutor could request telephone records going ,ack as long as they want to

the only limitation saying, that the telephone company have those records? >> one additional, the telephone company could challenge the subpoena as being overly burdened him and irrelevance and the court could take that out, which would be in a sealed receding, so it would not be public. >> love with the >>ndard be to evaluate it? generally, relevance to the investigation. >> the fourth of amendment -- the fourth amendment does not come into play? >> it does not. >> this is available to federal prosecutors across the country. >> yes, it is.

and a relevant other person in the investigation, then what do you do to listen to the telephone calls? >> if we wanted to listen to any telephone calls, and that would be telephone calls that started happening in the future, we would have to go to the court and seek authorization under title iii of the u.s. code to get a wiretap and we would have to show probable cause and show the person talking on the phone was involved in criminal act vividly and that they were discussing criminal activity and would've pain evidence of that by listen -- listening to the calls. >> there are a fair number of these. >> hundreds? >> probably. , if your as my friend

find evidence of some other criminal conduct during an you areation, investigating one crime and you hear conversation that suggest another crime is being committed, are there any limitations on use? >> generally not, other than restrictions on how you can use wiretap information. there are inscriptions on that and the protection of innocent halt. generally, you can use that if they can if it relates to other criminal conduct of order and the rules and procedures of the law. heard you describe, in detail, how the program the restrictions and limitations on use for the programs is much more restrictive and limited than what prosecutors and law enforcement are using on a daily basis throughout the united

states, investigating garden- variety crimes being committed by u.s. citizens. >> there are differences here and there. for example, the burden to get a wiretap may be a higher burden than 702 coverage. a different burden if we want to do one for somebody in the united states. that would be probable cause. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from washington. >> thank you author being here today. last month, when the director appeared before this committee, i stated i agree with those who believe greater transparency about the requests the will help is making inform the discussion we are having on balancing national security with privacy rights

and civil liberties. one of the questions i asked is how the fbi will respond to requests by google that it will submit national security requests it receives. , director mueller noted it is being with that. i was wondering if you were able to share with us what the response is to the request. >> it is a matter currently before the court so i cannot say too much other than to reiterate what director mueller said, that this is a matter we take seriously. >> we have data out there already. in march of this year, google worked with the bank of japan and the fbi to enclose the number of national security letters it received. we have some information.

do we know whether that information has any impact on national security? >> it is generally hard to tell unless you have a substantial time afterwards. we have not had enough time. >> thank you. thepublic now knows also telephone metadata collection is under section 215 and that this ms. records section of five sub that allows for the collection of tangible things. we have also seen reports of a now defunct program collecting e-mail metadata. with regards to that program, which is no longer being operated, can you confirm the authority used to collect that data was under section 213? >> it was not. it is slightly different. it amounts to the same type of thing. to and from and does not involve information about identity.

it is just e-mail adjusted. it is very similar but not under the same permission. section you have used 215 to collect that information? >> hard to tell. i would have to take a look. >> it is important for us to know whether or not there are limitations that prevent you from collecting e-mail metadata, or gps information, etc., and how broad is that authority what thenly as rod as courts can find that is relevant. there are different authorities so we would have to look and see how all those would work together. >> it isn't ported to remember the 215 authority allows you to acquire existing records and document and it is limited to that. >> you could argue geolocation information may also be

existing. would you consider that to be metadata, as well? >> the director of the national security agency has stated we are not collecting that under section 215 and we cut the congress and consult with congress before we do so. >> do you understand it is important for us to know what the limitations are as we look at policy? clearly, there is confusion right now. understand how it is being used and what information is collected so we can make sure it is delivered appropriately. the president feel we need to set up a national conversation on balancing privacy and security. in order to have a production conversation, we need information that will help that conversation, like section 215, etc.. i hope we can continue that and get access to more information

and have a productive discussion going forward. thank you for your time. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. answering some of the other questions, you provided an adequate defense. we have seen the abuses of government. we have seen the gathering of data. can tell you from having been here not when the patriot act was passed originally, but when it was extended in my first term in congress. got down to where there were only two did -- republicans demanding any type of safeguard tom i thought. -- of us. two others

i argued, demanding sunsets. and my friend had the amendments and we got at least two sunsets. the argument i made for 25 minutes to turn my colleagues around in our meeting was, i have seen how there can be violations of due process is at -- if everyone is not very diligent. we need the safeguards in order to have proper oversight. what has been disclosed of the monitoring scares me. we have had hearings in this room, people like jerry nadler have argued about the dangers of government having too much information. from my experience as a judge and chief justice, with state and federal judges, and having practiced before a very conservative federal judge and a very liberal judge, i could not

imagine anybody granting the kinds of orders we have seen granted. a blanket summary, go get all of these phone records. i under -- i understand they say, we do not have names with them. is it not true you can go on public or private data, any individual, and secure the names for a any number. >> maybe not every single one. thousand two, two as a chief justice in a conference, getting into a bit hash a debate with a cia lawyer, saying, banks have all your records, why should the government not? i was pointing out it is up ate banks cannot show your house, put you in handcuffs, throw you to the ground, and drag you off to

jail. there is an important distinction. -- then we find out the consumer financial protection bureau has been gathering information on everybody's financial records and they say the same thing most of you are saying. "we are not putting the names with it. even the nsa can get access to information gathered by the consumer financial protection bureau? >> that could be true, but i would say we cannot pull the telephone numbers from this database under any circumstances other than that prescribed by the courts. >> you are entitled to go -- we have had this debate. you are entitled to go on the or go to private thates and gather information without violating any constitutional rights.

is that not correct? >> certainly. match names against telephone numbers and we do not have access to telephone numbers. >> if you can gather the information a private individual could, and couple that with information only the federal government is gaering. it really tia gre threat to privacy. the consumer financial>> protection bureau said this. the director said this in testimony before congress. the bureau limit the circumstances in which it may dissimulate internally, share theyother agencies, or -- know they can share with other agencies. this begins to be a little scary. the justification we get seems to be, there are a handful of

cases where we have avoided terrorism by really gathering all of this private information, and it makes me think, how many king georgejane -- the third have argued that? by putting officers in everyone of of your homes, we ended up being able to avoid a couple of problems of violence. people's death people in our homes and that includes the federal government. i appreciate you being here today. >> thank you. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you. that it, am i correct is your position and the position of everyone on the panel that the telephone records of potentially hundreds of millions of americans in the form of metadata has been

discussed today and is relevant to a national security investigation? >> only when they are queried under the limitations prescribed by the court, where you have to have reasonable suspicion it is connected to a terrorist matter. >> fundamentally, it is your position they are relevant hasuse the court articulated a set of criteria by which further inquiry can be undertaken. is that correct >> they are. they are relevant because you have to have the entire haystack to look through. but we are not allowed to look at -- through the haystack willy-nilly. >> in terms of looking through the haystack, based on reasonable suspicion, am i correct there are 22 an essay individuals who are authorized to make the determination of

reasonable determination? is that right? life that is correct. >> these individuals do not have to go back to the court in order to determine whether they can move forward with a more invasive inspection of the phone records of the american contained in the database you have acquired? >> -- >> they are using the rules of the court, but they are making the determination and not the court as to the invasiveness of the further inspection, am i correct? >> on a case-by-case basis. >> all right. you have indicated, in your view, that the pfizer court is not a rubber stamp. that was the testimony echo you said, it is not a rubber stamp because they read and ask questions and push back careful study and analysis. is that accurate?

we just had a baseball are stuck -- all-star game yesterday. as american as baseball and apple pie. if you think back on the history of baseball. stan the man, a great hitter from st. louis, his batting average lifetime is close to being in the top 25. 331. babe ruth, the 10th all time. his lifetime batting average was 342. ted williams, the great lefty from the boston red sox, lifetime batting average 344. may disagree with some views on social justice issues, but a great hitter. the number one hitter of all time, 366. pretty impressive. i will still continue to ask you questions.

a look and these are the greatest hitters of all time. i took a look at what you're batting average is as it relates to the court. i am troubled at what we were able to determine. am i correct that in terms of the total applications submitted, since 1979, there were 33,000, 900 and 49 applications submitted. is that accurate? >> i do not know the number. i would not disagree, i just do not know it. >> of the total number of applications, 490, it appears were modified. is that correct? you have no reason to disagree. >> i do not know the answer. if i could just add one -- >> let me make an observation. i have got limited time. the total number of

applications made were modified. what is even more troubling, since 1979, 11 applications were denied. is that correct? 11. % of batting average was 99 the time that you have applied to prior information that could possibly come -- include communication from home -- one american to another. yet you have taken the position that the five cell court is an independent check to protect the civil liberties and constitutional rights of americans. is that correct? >> the answer is, we are not exactly talking about a small here. where imagine a situation the kind of interaction we had with the court, is that it throws a pitch and we do not hit it and the court says, we want

the pitch higher. and it is still not right. more inside. that is the reaction we had. they come back and tell us what we need to do to submit an application that will get approved. >> those modifications only took place 1.4% of the time. that is why many of us are concerned there is not an appropriate check on behalf of americans whose reckons could -- records could be subject. >> the number for modification there does not reflect the full theer of times in which court asks questions and comes back to us. my understanding is that comes at the very end of the process. there is a substantial give-and- take. that is not is not a full reflection. >> thanks. the chair now recognizes the central -- the gentleman from

your tie. >> i think the four of you for your service. i appreciate the dialogue. mr. is geo-location information metadata or content? >> that is an area of the law evolving. it is one the courts are now grappling with. >> the courts ruled in the case 9-0. they were pretty clear congress needed to grapple with this as well. has the department of justice issued any guidance on jones? >> we are in the process of looking through that. was based on trespassing. >> i know. have you issued any guidance on jones? >> we are in the process. >> that is not an accurate answer. my understanding is there are at issued todocuments

the federal bureau of investigation, uncovered through a request. almost every page was redacted. guidanceindeed issued on jones. >> i will stand to be corrected. if you have those, yes. the department of justice provide to this committee guidance on jones? >> it is something we will have to look into. >> i know there are law enforcement issues. why would you not provide to the a copy oftes congress the guidance for this committee? >> if it discloses sensitive information and techniques about might notht crime, we feel free to disclose it. >> to the chairman, this is one

of the great concerns. let me ask you again. is geolocation metadata or content? here it not content does not give you the content of anybody's calls. all it gives you is information about where they are. geolocation,ying you would classify as metadata. >> i am not sure it is one or the other. there are times where there are things in between. this may be one of those. it is certainly not content. it probably tends more towards metadata. this is an evolving area of the law. >> how is it evolving? this is what scares me about what you are doing and how you are doing it. if you knew exactly where i was standing, you are telling me that is not content? >> not the content of your conversation, no.

if you are standing out in public any number of other people may see you there. >> if i were standing on private property -- >> this is part of what jones talks about, the trespass issue. >> they ruled 5-0 it was an overreach. >> are you collecting that data? >> we are not. >> let me ask the nsa. not. are we have not done that. as indicated earlier, the director of nsa has given an affirmation to the congress that before such time we were to reconsider that we would come back to the congress. >> going back to